>>16129873
>>16129115
>>If the fluid is so anormal, why do they use the Lorentz transformation used in aeroacoustics nowadays?
>Show me an example. If what you say was true they would always have to use the Lorentz contraction. And yet they don't.
Are you going to argue the semantics of this sentence now?

Here is a paper in which contraction of distances is explicitly mentioned (Ctrl-F Galilean = 0 results!)
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40509-024-00317-8.pdf (Page 8 of the PDF)
>This increase in apparent pressure and mass density makes sense physically, since the motion of the observer
shortens the effective distances between particles in the medium on average, as long as the inertial observer is
treated as pointlike to avoid symmetry-breaking drag from particle collisions while in motion. In the limit that
the observer moves through the medium near the speed of sound, the background medium will appear to have
no space between its particles, so the effective density and pressure of the medium will appear to diverge for the
moving observer. At the speed of sound c, the observer reaches a shock wave discontinuity where on average all
particles seem to have zero spacing between them and the spacetime description fails. Thus, from an equilibrium
perspective this spacetime formulation of acoustics describes the right behavior for speeds below the speed of
sound c.
You can clearly see the Lorentz factor being used right above this paragraph, too. Clearly, Minkowski geometry, the Lorentz transformation, and Lorentz contraction are being used in aeroacoustics nowadays, just as I said, and despite you claiming otherwise.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

...where the dark matter particles?