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?
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 shows the Lorentz transform and goes on to show that it is dimensionally incorrect. This page on Chris Hillman's site 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 shows a comparison of equations. The first SR equation is wrong, it should be a function of γ , 1 / sqrt (1 - β <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 γ 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
Nobody's perfect ... 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Cheers, Crisp
"Quite simply The Autodynamics page is using the wrong expression." after that blunder me ain't sure Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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?
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. 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)
C'est Moi 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 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.
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
C'est moi 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.
