Autodynamics

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Adam, Apr 15, 2002.

  1. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    C'est Moi

    You've been taken hook, line and sinker. Read this page

    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "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
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    But it is very relevant

    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. Alfvén 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 β = (1 - v^2/c^2) and not it's reciprocal. It is trivial to see that β - > 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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "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
     
  8. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    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.

    It is not an interpretation. The maths says that as v-c, β 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.

    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.
     
  9. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    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
     
  10. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Hey, C'est Moi

    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.
     
  11. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    this is not interesting, sarcasm only makes it worse

    "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
     
  12. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    ""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.
     
  13. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Re: this is not interesting, sarcasm only makes it worse

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

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

    OK
     
  14. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Frankly, not convinced.
     

Share This Page