Talk:Autodynamics

message: In the article, we find the statement "The effect of the revised equations proposed in autodynamics". What equations? There are none listed. In fact, there is nothing in the article except discussion of discussions of autodynamics; as opposed to anything pertaining to the topic, itself. Since an article is supposed to explain what its topic actually is, then this needs to either be revised to do so, or else be eliminated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:3361:EAF8:97B7 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article forgot to actually explain what autodynamics is 

message: Mr. De Hilster, your recent edit was difficult to understand.   I have undone it for now---perhaps you can explain here what you meant, and we'll try to come up with better wording.
#"The autodynamics velocity addition equation is significantly different in concept from the classical one in that it treats movement as part of the entire system so movement must be gotten from the mass itself."    Does this mean "Autodynamics only works for cases where the energy comes from mass loss, i.e. radioactive decay, and does not apply to motion due to anything other than mass loss"?   "Autodynamics differs from classical mechanics in that its only works for closed systems, in which all moving parts got their energy from the same source"?  
#"Autodynamic proponents argue that reduction of SR's equations to Newton is not an advantage given that Autodynamic equations do not violate conservation of energy and are all Newtonian."   I can't make heads nor tails of this.  Are you saying "Autodynamics, like SR, gives the same answers as Newtonian physics in the low-velocity limit?"   "SR violates conservation of energy?"    "SR may reduce to Newton, but Autodynamics is better anyway"?  Bm gub 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by dehilster 

message: In my latest edit, I changed the existing inline refs to use the ref tags.  Many of the "footnotes" previously listed are not in the article any more, and using the tags should make maintenance and future changes easier.  I tried not to change any wording in this edit.  Here is what the footnote section was before my change. Note in particular that items 14 and 15 may be worthy of consideration for inclusion.  
===Old footnotes section===
Caveat lector!  These links are almost all to de Hilster's website.  They are given here so that interested readers can verify the facts stated in the body of the article.
#  W. W. Buechner and R. J. Van de Graaff, Physical Review 70:3-4 (1946), Calorimetric Experiment on the Radiation Losses of 2-MeV Electrons 
#  Aforementioned Wired article about Autodynamics
#  Autodynamics response to the wired article
#  Report of Alvarez's Assistance
#  Article on the Sum Velocity
#  Article on Galilean Simplification
#  Article on Frames Derivation
#  Article on Superfluous System
#  D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys. Rev. A 29:2110-2113 (1984), Calorimetric Test of Special Relativity
#  See endnote 2 of: Ricardo Carezani, The Muon Decay muon+ -> e+ e+ e+ and Autodynamics, Physics Essays: Volume 5, no. 1, March 1992
#  C.D. Ellis and B.A. Wooster, Proc. Roy. Soc. A117, 109 (1927)
#  L. Meitner and W. Orthmann, Zeits. f. Physik 60, 143 (1930)
#  Carezani, R.L., Discussion: Energy Loss by Electrons in Absorber
# Ricardo Carezani, Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics, 
# Ricardo L. Carezani, Autodynamics - A Storm in Physics, 
# Autodynamics home page
# Autodynamics FAQ
--Tim Shuba 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline references and footnotes section cleaned up 

message: Caveat lector!  These links are almost all to de Hilster's website.  They are given here so that interested readers can verify the facts stated in the body of the article.
#  W. W. Buechner and R. J. Van de Graaff, Physical Review 70:3-4 (1946), Calorimetric Experiment on the Radiation Losses of 2-MeV Electrons 
#  Aforementioned Wired article about Autodynamics
#  Autodynamics response to the wired article
#  Report of Alvarez's Assistance
#  Article on the Sum Velocity
#  Article on Galilean Simplification
#  Article on Frames Derivation
#  Article on Superfluous System
#  D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes, and R.L. Carezani, Phys. Rev. A 29:2110-2113 (1984), Calorimetric Test of Special Relativity
#  See endnote 2 of: Ricardo Carezani, The Muon Decay muon+ -> e+ e+ e+ and Autodynamics, Physics Essays: Volume 5, no. 1, March 1992
#  C.D. Ellis and B.A. Wooster, Proc. Roy. Soc. A117, 109 (1927)
#  L. Meitner and W. Orthmann, Zeits. f. Physik 60, 143 (1930)
#  Carezani, R.L., Discussion: Energy Loss by Electrons in Absorber
# Ricardo Carezani, Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics, 
# Ricardo L. Carezani, Autodynamics - A Storm in Physics, 
# Autodynamics home page
# Autodynamics FAQ
--Tim Shuba 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old footnotes section

message: I find it incredible that after over 30 years, the cult of AD, like John Doan's rants about the Twin Paradox of Special Relativity, still exist, but apparently these are both alive and well, and possibly aided by the internet.  Apparently, it is impossible to dissseminate real information without providing an equal opportunity to do the same for misinformation.
After a lengthy discussion via e-mail with DeHilster over 30 years ago, I decided that about the only valid criticism AD has with the theory of Special Relativity was the idea that "more than one observer" was required of Special Relativity.  Actually, this is not true.  What Special Relativity is trying to say really has less to do with observers than it does with two different frames of reference.  If you only have one inertial frame of reference in the universe, there is literally nothing to discuss, in terms of meter sticks, clocks, or anything else.  Even a single "observer" is comprised of over 10^24 atoms, each of which constitutes a different frame of reference (that is different for each and every part of the single observer that moves).  Cute animations with rotund single observers was never really the point for de Hilster, or any other AD adherent, you see.
AD is simply another form of the "Einstein haters" cult, which has a history dating back as far as 1905.  These people just never seem to go away, or if they do, it's to places like Argentina, apparently.  Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why someone like Ricardo Carezani might have really liked the idea of immigrating to that country around 1945 or so?  Elie Wiesel couldn't get all of them.  Even the name "Hilster" is just a little suspicious, I noticed after we parted company so very long ago.  Godwin's law had not even been formulated back then.
I  recommend that David de Hilster and any of his AD disciples be disallowed from editing or revising anything on Wikipedia.  It would be like allowing Tom Cruise to edit Wikipedia's article on Scientology.  I'm not exaggerating.  Danshawen (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  David de Hilster, John Doan and other cult Einstein-Haters 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Autodynamics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090110183905/http://www.wired.com:80/science/discoveries/news/1999/07/20663 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/07/20663
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050118004113/http://www.slac.stanford.edu:80/pubs/slacpubs/2000/slac-pub-2890.html to http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/2000/slac-pub-2890.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified