Talk:Autodynamics/Archive 2

message: Older threads from this page have been archived at the following locations:
* Talk:Autodynamics/Archive01 (threads from before August 2005)
If you want to revive discussions from an archived thread, please start a new thread topic here and quote material where appropriate. Please don't change the archive. --Christopher Thomas 18:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: This could be a typo on the Autodynamics website?? 
AD Skeptics
Well, well, it appears that David Hilster pretty much painted himself and, by induction, Carezani into a corner. Since I'm no autodynamicist, I could just let it be.  But I started to wonder about how this Wikipedia thing here works, and I could not let go of it.  It is pretty neat how advocates get it in the teeth, and often are hanged by the very things they wrote.  That's neat spectacle. However, it carries a MAJOR consequence: that the skeptics (typically administrators with a mission), they too, and just as often as the advocates, don't care either about the truth of the subject-matter or the truth of facts and events.  Permit me a simple demonstration: yes, the admin skeptics invite open dialogue, but it is a trap for the uncautious only. They have the power to disconnect, the power to determine which peer reviewed journals or magazines are acceptable or not as being scientific, the power to suppress even other people's interventions.  They regularly do tag-teams to avoid a bureaucratic cyber-record of any breaks in the idiotic 3RR rule, have special voting privileges, and can even make the show of a majority.  This while they remain, for the most part, anonymous, save for a few Grand Dragons. Which gets us back to science - because, if they were NPOV, or impartial, they would strive to weed out the error, not just amongst detractors but even amongst those who call themselves supporters or present themselves as advocates. Hilster is a good person who has done his best to promote awareness of Carezani's work, even if this effort is flawed.  Carezani too is a courageous scientist who deserves everyone's respect.  Even if he failed, in pars or in toto, he tried to advance science with genuine dedication. Isn't that the important fact? 
If we were going to throw out good scientists because they failed, there would soon be no scientists around. BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT IN ALL THIS IS THE SCIENCE, no?  Yet that is what has been abandoned here by both Hilster and the admin detractors of AD. And the science is pretty obvious - if you are moving at 1 km/h with respect to frame A and someone (frame C) passes you at a speed that you clock as 1 km/h with respect to your own frame B, then someone sitting on the edge of the road (in frame A), looking at both of you and measuring each in turn, will measure you at 1 km/h and the other fellow at 2 km/h. Reality can be spoken of in many ways, but 2 km/h is the measure for the speed of that someone (on frame C) that was travelling 1 km/h faster than you with respect to frame A. If AD claimed that the right speed of that someone is 1.41 km/h with resepct to frame A, then it would be either (1) a silly error (that's where the administrators are having a party), or (2) be a speed describing not a speed with respect to frame A, nor with respect to frame B, but the geometric mean of both speeds - that observed in frame A (by the third party sitting on the edge of the road), and that observed in frame B (by you), without privileging either one. It would not be anymore silly than Relativity's 1.99999...km/h, were it not that Relativity had no pretensions to butt in the mechanical world of speeds that ARE NOT a substantial fraction of the speed of light c,or pretensions to have found a privileged frame of reference (though things changed somewhat with the discovery of the microwave cosmic background radiation...). Now, the point is that, me not being an autodynamicist, from what I have read of Carezani's work, I never encountered the claim that Autodynamics applied to something other than the world of relativistic speeds, where the speeds of moving objects ARE a significant fraction of the speed of light c. 
So, as far as my knowledge extends, to take the defender of Autodynamics as the spokesman for Carezani and AD is a willful mistake of those who do not seek the truth but pose as being impartial judges and arbitrators. It is this Wikipedian pose which is an imposture. 
From my viewpoint (and I would gladly be proven wrong by either Hilster or the admins - Salsb, Joke ) Hilster may be an apologist of AD, but it seems that he is doing Carezani a disservice when he choses to present AD as claiming that the actual speed of frame C is 1.41 km/h. That result is only the geometric mean of the speeds of frame C when clocked 'simultaneously' with respect to frames A and B.  But with respect to frame A, the speed will always be measured as 2 km/h (and not 1.9999...).  For that paragraph now in the entry to stand as it does, attribution to Hilster is not sufficient.  Hilster or the admins must provide the reference to where Carezani states that the speed with respect to frame A is 1.41 km/h, not 2 km/h, exactly within that range of speeds that are not considered to be a significant fraction of the speed of light. If the paragraph is allowed to stand by the admininistrators who have behaved in this entry with an undeniable POV, then it will be one more reminder of the misinformation that is glibly passed as fact in this so-called encyclopedia. And it will mark the simple fact that these administrators are more interested in behaving as detractors who will use even the errors of supporters to achieve their denigration objectives, than as impartial thinkers trying to construct a balanced entry that could benefit the public.  (the dialup.ca.telus.com anon,  TELUS Communications Inc. in Toronto) 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The cited reference was not deleted. I just moved it to an inline link.--CSTAR 02:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreement with facts re small velocities

message: The AD supporters here need to acknowledge something: AD has not been established by any sort of scientific authority.  AD makes a bunch of statements which have not been  examined, much less agreed upon, by any mainstream scientists.   Among these statements are:
# SR does not correctly describe decays
# some AD equations correctly describe decays
# some AD equations correctly describes non-decay kinematics
# some as-yet-unstated AD law unambiguously distinguishes decays from non-decays (for example, clearly alpha emission is a decay.  Is a firing cannon a "decay"?  How about a person jumping off of a car?  How about a car pushing forward from the Earth, and a person also pushing forward from the Earth?)
# neutrinos do not exist
Let's be frank.  AD supporters have not convinced mainstream scientists that these statements are correct, or even coherent.  (They may say "just not yet", or "because of the self-serving narrowminded elite"; I would say "because they're wrong".  Either answer is irrelevant.)  The evidence for this is that there are *no refereed articles*, none, anywhere, discussing the AD equations (Physics Essays is not refereed.).  Now, the gist of the above discussion is that several supporters are trying to convince several skeptics that the AD equations are well-formed.  I suggest that this is inappropriate; Wikipedia is not the place for original research.  I would observe that wikipedia's policy on how to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories "originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks"!  Wikipedia is not the place to compare theory and experiment, solve equations, and announce grand new hypotheses, nor even to argue for the truth of a new hypothesis. It's a place to report and summarize what is going on in the world.  Autodynamics has so far not managed to convince the world-beyond-wikipedia that its equations mean anything at all.  If they are to make any impact, they have to do it "out there" first, then come in to Wikipedia and summarize their Physical Review article.  
In the meantime, I think this article should be scaled back dramatically, removing the equations.  The remainder should contain full and stern caveats---"Supporters claim ...", "... although this has not been established", "... at odds with the mainstream view", etc.   To you AD supporters: if your theory is as convincing as you say it is, you'll have no trouble convincing the referees at Physical Review.  You need to convince *someone else* first, if the details of AD are to become wikipedia-worthy.  But, please discuss.  18.4.2.3 16:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, but in practice it is impossible to do anything about this, unfortunately.  Resistance is futile.--CSTAR 17:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. And if the "researchers" who defend AD continue to post speculation and unfounded research on this page, then it should be locked, or something. Cynicalkane 02:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: All of this hand waving about peer-review and "scientific authority" is irrelevant at this point. The article is about Autodynamics, not physics in general.  All stated claims of Autodynamics about physical processes in the article already contain caveats. If one wanted to present a claim of AD as accepted fact, then of course (according to the Wikipedia guidelines) one would have to present some mainstream, accepted publication to make their case. However, this sort of statement does not exist in the article.  In fact, according to the "No original research" guidelines, the first point under "How to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories" suggests to state the key concepts [for the theory].  The addition of velocities in AD is one its key concepts.  The second suggestion is to identify the general consensus [for the theory]. Since there are very few publications addressing AD at all, this should in fact lead to very little disagreement on what the key concepts of AD are.--Tbainbri 22:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting into "original research" 

message: Because I can't make heads or tails of the mathematical equations on this page, which are confusing and contain undefined terms, and because nobody has bothered to clean them up, and because they are nowhere near peer-reviewed research, I slapped an NPOV tag on it. Cynicalkane 02:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating. You are the one that added the AD sum velocity equation to the article in the first place (see the article's history: Revision as of 20:39, 16 July 2005). You seemed to find it perfectly acceptable to provide a complete misinterpretation of the equations as a "simple and obvious proof" against AD, yet when it is replaced with an explanation in alignment with Carezani's book, you decide to "slap" an NPOV tag on it. I cannot help it that you are confused.--Tbainbri 20:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV section 

message: I tried to locate Carezani's book on Autodynamics in several major U.S. University Libraries. Sorry, I'm not going to spend US$40 to write a Wikipedia article [others think its worth more:  William M. Connolley 17:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  US$333. Yikes. I'll stick to the yellowing ragged clip.--CSTAR 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-evidence on Autodynamics