*sigh* And I had promised myself not to get involved in this thread. Alright, last post:
No, that's not what I said. The vortices are, of course, also moving along the ring.
Unfortunately your lack of technical knowledge keeps you from describing the affect properly and I have not been able to read it for myself. But to state the contraction was orthogonal (to anythning) suggests something is awry. I suspect it is your reading, understanding and hence ability to recite the test that is at the root of the problem here and not some outlandish claim on their part.
So, in other words, it's not inconsistent at all.
Ignoring your assertion the contraction was "Orthogonal" somehow and assuming the condensed collision zone was along the line of sight, then that would not be inconsistant -EXCEPT:
1 - Seeing it only in the collision zone certainly suggests it is an affect other than lorentz contraction. Collision is just like a car crash it doesn't matter if the iron particles from a car or if it is two iron particles colliding in an accelerator. All restance to to collision is columb force. And the depth of penetration of columb force is a function of energy or collision velocity.
That is physics 101 and I really fail based soley on the abstract how they can suggest otherwise. I repeat the qualifier here - "Based on the abstract"
There is nothing about my position here that is glib.
2 - Even more importantly is the fact that even in SR the affect is just between the traveling observer and resting observer. so to now suggest a third observer not in the line of sight sees and photographs the affect is - Well simply astounding. And exceptional claims require exceptional proof.
Apparently, you didn't really understand what the article was about, did you? (And, interestingly, I didn't need to either in order establish that.) Which is why statements such as are completely delusional.
What a joke. You finally honestly admit you lack knowledge to read and understand the article but then turn around and claim to not need to to judge my comments about the abstract for the article.
I repeat once more what I said and it is very qualified "Based soley on the abstract I find the claims to be unjustified". Amazing.
Now consider #2 above. You might start to wonder about that article youself - if not you should.
You apparently do not have the expertise to dismiss the article based on the information in the abstract. Hell, you even missed the basic setup: the abstract (based on which you say their claim is "completely unjustified") writes that the junction is annular, and on top of that you got the movement of the vortices completely wrong! Even if you (by some miracle) do actually possess the necessary prerequisites to make any sort of evaluation of their claim, and are just a lazy reader, you seem to completely dismiss even the possibility of investigating it. That's not reasonable - it's just denial.
I did just braze over the abstract but for a reason. The very idea that they apparently are claiming third party observation to lorentz contract between two objects with relative motion is simply ludricrus since in the first instance the affect is nothing more than a mathematical construct created by ignoring a emperically demonstrated affect called time dilation and where that constructed affect only exists between observers with relative velocity.
SR doesn't even claim observable contraction to third parties or the rest of the univers. OMG grow up.
Now if what they really saw were collective affects of Penrose Rotation I might give it further thought; except it would be difficult to explain a Penrose affect of a vortice structure.
If you aren't familiar with Penrose look it up.
are completely delusional.For those reasons I continue to claim the article as proof that 1) Lorentz contraction has been observed, 2) you know about it, and that 3) you are a willfully ignorant crank to keep denying it.
You can claim any damn thing you want but that doesn't alter the facts of the case. You are a computer nerd, admittedly incapable of reading and understanding a physics technical paper of this sort, that believes on mere faith or ignorance that SR is the cat's meow and that therefore you can come on here and attack me and anything I say without any substivie proof other than your beliefs.
Well I think that gives me just cause to be a bit pissed at you - don't you?
I'm trying to give you a bit of sound advice but you son't ssem to want to learn.
Moving on to CptBork's ever-so-reasonable stance: Completely orthogonal to the issue above is that even though you have training in "formal mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering", you seem completely unable to make any sort of coherent mathematical formulation of your own ideas, and most of your posting is bluster about "physical reality" and "illusions".
Bubby if I or you could re-write physics I think we would both be getting the nobel. That is not in my realm. But as to our respective qualifications I suggest mine appear at least far more technical and formal than yours and frankly I find it offensive that you carry on with so little actual basis for your comments.
I have had (3) formal debates with a high energy particle physicist. I held my own and we had mutual respect for each others views. I do not get angry just because you disagree but your basis for disagreement must be sound physics and you clearly have none.
Your attack are based on nothing but your beliefs not knowledge and that irritates me - sorry but that is the reality.
(Which is, why except for a few stalwarts with more patience than could be reasonably expected, nobody gives your "ideas" the time of day.) Go away, and come back when you have a coherent (and consistent) mathematical framework to replace relativity theory. You are wasting everyone's time, here.
You can judge when it is coherent ? Give me a break. You come back when you have some actual physics background to assert that what I am presenting is in conflict with some emperical data. Considering nobody has yet I rather doubt a computer nerd will.
.I don't know to whom the Quixote analogy best applies: MacM for fighting again str, or us for fighting against him, but futile it is in either case. Goodday, gentlemen.
I really hope that means "Goodbye" for you have contributed nothing of value here. Your opinions are like Assh___s everyone has one.
When you first started your posts I was looking forward to our discussion because you talked like you knew something about the issues. It turns out you don't and therefore should be listening and not talking.
Last edited: