I saw autodynamics mentioned in another thread. Could someone please explain what this is all about? What does it say that is not covered by other theories? What are the problems with it?

I'm not touching this with a barge pole.

Wimp. :p

Hi Adam,

I never heard about it either, so I tried a google search and it came up with this:

http://www.autodynamics.org

I've been reading some articles on the site, and I must agree with James that it looks quite suspicious (to put it very gently). There's an article that should show why the Lorentz transformations are incorrect, but after reading it I somehow have the feeling that the writer does not really have a clue what the Lorentz transformations come down to physically.

So briefly: I wouldn't put my faith in this autodynamics thing.

Bye!

Crisp

I've heard autodynamics mentioned before, mostly in the terms expressed recently here at sciforums. Some people say "But autodynamics has answers..." and someone else will say "Yeah, but it's all been proven incorrect." So I know enough to ask about it and not enough to know anything about it.

Autodynamics is nonsense,there is a thread about it in another forum:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000932

i was not impressed by that discussion ... they seemed to be more interested in discussing dimensions
no one gave one single clear objection

Yep bad argument on those pages.

Every time I look at the Autodynamics pages I keep thinking they are playing some very funny games with the Maths. This page on autodynamics (http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/physindex.html) shows the Lorentz transform and goes on to show that it is dimensionally incorrect.

This page on Chris Hillman's site (http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/construction.html) also shows the Lorentz transform. But the expression for transforming t' is radically different than the Autodynamics one and more like the one I know.

Quite simply The Autodynamics page is using the wrong expression.


This page on Autodynamics (http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/physindex.html) shows a comparison of equations. The first SR equation is wrong, it should be a function of &gamma; , 1 / sqrt (1 - &beta; <Sup>2</sup> ), the second equation for mass I've never seen before, it's more normally written as the first. The third I've never seen but not [1] in that form. The fourth is totally wrong, the fifth I've never seen. Also, Autodynamics uses &gamma; as a multiplication factor, not as a function.

Plus, in the Autodynamics variants the second equation for mass makes the mass <u>decrease</u> with velocity. KE starts large and then approaches mc^2 with increasing velocity and momentum also gets smaller with increasing velocity. Totally against observation.

============================================

Edited to clarify a point between the differences on Autodynamics and conventional Physics

============================================

[1] Edited to add 'but not'.
I miss words out ocassionally. A mild form of dyslexia of something.
=============================================

OK, I'll correct myself before anyone else. The equation for mass according to SR on the Autodynamics comparison site is correct.

This is why I never made it past degree level. I make stupid, stupid mistakes. Eat my shorts as a wise man once said.

Actually they are sort of correct - the versions on the Autodynamics pages are basically toy equations,the real equations are cast in the language of vector and tensor calculus.

"This is why I never made it past degree level. I make stupid, stupid mistakes. Eat my shorts as a wise man once said."

that makes two of us
I also have this stupid habit on exams to have it nearly correct, there always has to be some stupid mistake

... reminds me of the time when I had to explain the Poynting vector for an exam of Electromagnetism. Because I forgot to study that chapter of the book we were using, I had absolutely no idea what the prof was talking about (I really forgot it, I simply didn't know that we had to study that particular chapter)...

So when he asked me that question, which I had understood as a question asking for the "pointing" vector, I could not find anything better than saying "well, the name says it all, that vector points towards a quantity". You can realize that my face suddenly turned white when I was told that "Poynting" was a name :).

We all make stupid mistakes. Education is just a way of knowing how to hide them well with loads of mumbo-jumbo after you realize you were wrong :).

Cheers,

Crisp

"Quite simply The Autodynamics page is using the wrong expression."

after that blunder me ain't sure :D

the equations compared to each other was published in Physics Review --> what the hell is Physics Review? (I'm sorry, but I am familiar with Archaeological journals, only with a few Physics journals) and I cannot find a website of it

Well, if the autodynamics people can build an FTL trans-receiver for communication or build a gravity generator that doubles earth gravity in a static room - then everybody will cheer. Until then they remain in the same group as the perpetual motion machine people....I think.

Crisp, is there anything there that is of commercial value?

Originally posted by c'est moi
[B]"Quite simply The Autodynamics page is using the wrong expression."

after that blunder me ain't sure :D

If I make a mistake, I'll admit to it publically. It is more than any kook will ever do. I am sure you are aware that honesty is an integral part of any science and everyone makes mistakes.


the equations compared to each other was published in Physics Review --> what the hell is Physics Review?

Only the most prestigious peer reviewed journal on Physics there is. That does not lend credence of course. As Sagan mentions in "The Demon Haunted World" even a Nobel prize winner gets ideas wrong. Using the argument that they where published in a journal as evidence they are right is an appeal to authority.

aha, I didn't know that
and again Aha, you're not gonna tell me that this peer-reviewed journal let pass wrong equations of SR, that's bullshit
all you hear when discussing something alternative is "have they published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal?" (at least, I've heard it many many times)

you claim to have knowledge of Archaeological journals? So your background is in Archaeology, yes? Let me ask a question by way of illustrating a point. I have evidence that points to the lost Continent of Atlantis, it's the recent structures found off Bimini and others recently found. Bauvalds hypothesis of an extant technological culture 120,000 yrs ago is correct. Do you believe me, if not, why not?

The point is all the evidence Bauvald cites is from journals. The journals will allow a paper through if it has merit. The paper cited is here (http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/physindex.html) but they do not say which set of equations are published. It leads you to think their equations where, and they may have been, but it don't make them any the more correct.

This is the trick the followers of 'the electric universe' models use. They publish in journals, but in journals for Plasmsa research. If they tried to publish in Physical Review I doubt they would be accepted.

Lastly, indeed, not being accepted by a peer reviwed journal is good evidence an idea has no merit. Just because it is published doesn't mean it's right though. Usually you have several competing groups publishing papers supporting thier ideas and contradicting the opposition. The idea with the strongest evidence wins out or the facts force the issue.

Such is the way with Relativity. EVeryone tries to knock it down as it's possibly the most important idea around. The person who supplants Relativity will become very famous of course. All Physicists want to be that person. The majority realise that Relativity is correct and the facts support it. Only the kooks keep trying to attack it, that is what makes them kooks. Doggedly holding onto a fallacious idea despite the reams of evidence against them. The other classic is to use selective evidence or selectively choose which eveidence you think disproves the dominant idea and attack that, usually with more bad ideas.

you claim to have knowledge of Archaeological journals? So your background is in Archaeology, yes? Let me ask a question by way of illustrating a point. I have evidence that points to the lost Continent of Atlantis, it's the recent structures found off Bimini and others recently found. Bauvalds hypothesis of an extant technological culture 120,000 yrs ago is correct. Do you believe me, if not, why not?

Thed, the mainstream model of general history is shaking on its grounds. I study archaeology. Only the powerfull establishment is keeping it from remaining as it is.

it's like that on their page:

"1. EQUATIONS(1)"

below all equations

maybe you can look it up how it is in the Physics Review? Otherwise I'll go to the physics departement at my uni to look it up myself and make a copy of it
what will you say if it is identical? I don't believe that they would let through wrong equations of SR ...

as for the trick of electric universe, how does this apply to autodynamics??? i so no reason to cite them here

what about the graviton? mainstream or not? einstein will be knocked down sooner or later and this by the establishment itself
let us see, newton got knocked down but he's still here, no? we still use him no? what's the problem then

Answer my question.

Is Bauvald right or wrong.

Of course you claim you don't see the connection. They use the same fallacious reasoning to support themselves. Admitting that would be admitting you are deliberately goading people here.

You've been taken hook, line and sinker. Read this page (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html)

Dr. Carenzi confirmed Relativity to within 30%. The paper he cites in Phys. Rev. A. does not confirm Autodynamics. Live with it, it's all a double bluff.

"This is the trick the followers of 'the electric universe' models use. They publish in journals, but in journals for Plasmsa research. If they tried to publish in Physical Review I doubt they would be accepted."

again, connection with AD? here they publish indeed in a very relevant journal

dear Thed, address specific issues on AD like you started off or just don't do anything
you get off-topic all the time
it's not nice
if you wanna talk archaeology, this is not the right topic nor the right forum
i looked at the paper, euhm what's the point here? maybe I'm just too tired now I'm going to bed

I think you very much understand what I am driving at and refuse to respond to it. You are not that daft.

Carenzi, Bauvald and Hancock et al are all postulating ideas in stark contrast to accepted wisdom. They use the same tactics of selecting evidence to support their theories whilst ignoring data that disagrees with them.

As you appear to agree with Dr. Carenzi's hypothesis I am very interested in your position on Hancock and Bauvald. Same for plasma cosmologies. Alfv&eacute;n and Thornhill. Alfv%eacute;n may have got a Nobel for work on plasma physics/magnetohydrodynamics but that does not make all his hypotheses right.

You want to debate specifics, fine by me. Please explain how Autodynamics is right when it claims &beta; = (1 - v^2/c^2) and not it's reciprocal. It is trivial to see that &beta; - > 0 as v - > c. Hence mass decreases with increasing velocity, time speeds up and such like. This contradicts observation. Why is this correct and observation wrong.

"Carenzi, Bauvald and Hancock et al are all postulating ideas in stark contrast to accepted wisdom."

the last two have some pretty good reasons for this

"They use the same tactics of selecting evidence to support their theories whilst ignoring data that disagrees with them."

I agree, nonetheless, the mainstream view on history is in conflict with observed data around the world (they just found yet another sunken city off-shore in India ...)
but again, this is not the thread to discuss this

"As you appear to agree with Dr. Carenzi's hypothesis"

nope, not completely
I don't think they are right with their new look at the reference frames, seems wrong to me
as wrong as Einstein's relativity principle
I do accept some of the ideas they put forward, not necessarily the explanations

"I am very interested in your position on Hancock and Bauvald."

well, I think they are right on some points but wrong on many other things
it's not black - white
with archaeological remains you can take many different directions
because of the very nature of the remains most off those things will remain an assumption forever

"Same for plasma cosmologies. Alfv¨¦n and Thornhill. Alfv%eacute;n may have got a Nobel for work on plasma physics/magnetohydrodynamics but that does not make all his hypotheses right. "

very true
they use different math for the same things
mostly the cosmologists don't even know their maths

"You want to debate specifics, fine by me. Please explain how Autodynamics is right when it claims ¦Â = (1 - v^2/c^2) and not it's reciprocal. It is trivial to see that ¦Â - > 0 as v - > c. Hence mass decreases with increasing velocity, time speeds up and such like. This contradicts observation. Why is this correct and observation wrong."

mass increase --> see my opinion in the, by now, long thread of Has light a mass
I have no idea why they want the mass to decrease and have wondered about it too (btw, your "observation" here is an interpretation, not an observation)
but you can't deny that in respect to some phenomena, the solutions found are much more simple and compatible with AD than with SR

The issue with Autodynamics, as with any idea, is to view it ciritically. Autodynamics fails that test. It's based on flawed assumptions, uses flawed maths and does not match observation.


Originally posted by c'est moi
I have no idea why they want the mass to decrease and have wondered about it too (btw, your "observation" here is an interpretation, not an observation)

It is not an interpretation. The maths says that as v-c, &beta; gets smaller. Simple as that. If autodynamics was right the K.E. of particles would not increase with velocity. The theory fails the rule of falsifiability.


but you can't deny that in respect to some phenomena, the solutions found are much more simple and compatible with AD than with SR

Please provide evidence that this is the case. Preferably independant evidence not quoted by autodynamics.org. If any theory has merit it has to be independantly verified.

Thed, you are getting too old for this. Change the record, it's stuck and I really mean that. I see no point in discussing something like AD with someone like you. I won't learn and you won't discuss, you will simply quote textbooks.

Ta ta

Funny, I thought we where discussing it but you can't back your case.

Just had a thought, you have repeatedly claimed photons are not massless. You also claim AD has merit. Yet AD says that at velocity c a photon has no mass.

Care to reconcile these wildly varying statements.

"Funny, I thought we where discussing it but you can't back your case. "

you can't even put an interesting objection forward
the one you gave about the mass is no good for reasons that I won't repeat here

"Just had a thought, you have repeatedly claimed photons are not massless."

I have never claimed that --> Joeblow
I remain as open as a flower in spring on this

""Please provide evidence that this is the case. Preferably independant evidence not quoted by autodynamics.org. If any theory has merit it has to be independantly verified.""

I have repeatedly told about the binary stars issue in the other thread. Look there.

Originally posted by c'est moi

"Funny, I thought we where discussing it but you can't back your case. "

You can't even put an interesting objection forward
the one you gave about the mass is no good for reasons that I won't repeat here

Please do, I think it's a very good objection. A very good objection at that.


"Just had a thought, you have repeatedly claimed photons are not massless."

I have never claimed that --> Joeblow

OK, I goofed. Having read most of the thread thread on Does Light have Mass


I remain as open as a flower in spring on this

OK

Originally posted by c'est moi
""Please provide evidence that this is the case. Preferably independant evidence not quoted by autodynamics.org. If any theory has merit it has to be independantly verified.""

I have repeatedly told about the binary stars issue in the other thread. Look there.

Frankly, not convinced.