I was directed by an earlier thread to this website promoting Autodynamics as an alternative to Reletivity theory. Despite the hokey nature of the web site and the fact that it doesn’t really explain the theory (except for the ‘physics only’ math stuff that I didn’t even try to comprehend) I got the impression that this name should have an ‘ology’ following it.
Is there anyone out there who can explain the theory with reasonable clarity? I would love for any physicist SDMB’ers to throw in their $0.02, is there any theoretical weight to this or is this just a snipe hunt?
Maybe I’ve been brainwashed by years of physics, but it sounds to me like these people are really in desperate need of help. There are an awful lot of crackpots out there who have discovered all sorts of “flaws” in quantum mechanics or general relativity and have “fixed” them, and I’m thinking this is just one more example.
BTW, does anyone else think they chose the name Autodynamics because of Auto Mechanics?
I read through the derivation, and what struck me was:
He assumed there was one and only one way to derive the so-called “simplified Lorentz” equations. I have seen a very similar derivation of special relativity that used that sort of approach. The other derivations don’t says, to paraphrase “Since there’s only one variable, it must be a linear relationship.”
His classical definition of force F=ma is not quite right. The classical definition of force is F=dM/dt where M is momentum.
He used E=mc^2, as an axiom, while it is actually derived from Einstein’s special relativity. He should have derived it himself before introducing it.
His equations show that mass goes to zero as velocity goes to c, In contrast to SR
His equations seems to show that time goes to infinity as velocity approaches c, in contrast to SR.
He does assume a constant velocity of light, regardless of frame of reference (although he specifically states there is only one frame of reference).
The basis of his theory seems to be that decay powers motion: Kinetic Energy+Rest Mass Energy is conserved, but of course if matter turns into kinetic energy, the total energy will be conserved (an exothermic chemical reaction results in products that weight ever-so-slighty less than the starting reactants).
His constant jabs at Einstein really made me question his motives.
Well, IANAP, but I’m a dabbler in reading about relativity, quantum mechanics, and the like.
Amazingly, they don’t appear to know that neutrinos can be (and are) detected all the time. It’s hard, but not impossible. Of course, who cares about facts when you’ve got a good rant?
They also don’t appear to understand that the missing mass isn’t required by the ToR…it’s needed to explain the rotational rates of galaxies as much as anything. Again, let’s make sure we don’t relate anything we don’t want the people who don’t know better to know…
Also amazingly enough, quarks were postulated to explain experimental oddities, not, as Mr. Hilster would have you believe, made up in order to give physicists something to do.
And bravo for the persecution and “we’re smarter than everyone else” complexes, as well.
Frankly, I think that these people not only have tinfoil hats, but have been fitted for the latest and greatest in the baked-potato line of Ralph Lauren menswear.
It’s a beautiful combination of idiocy, combined with a healthy dose of complete ignorance of physics unrivalled by anyone over the age of two. He’s basically explaining why things move all by themselves, without any outside force moving them. Oops, I’ve got to go clean up… My coffee mug just spontaneously flew off my desk. Wait, never mind, that never actually happens. Why try to explain why it does?
I especially liked the poll on the webpage… Is autodynamics the only thing that’s right, or is it only one of many possible theories which might be right?
