Talk:Autodynamics/Archive 1

message: While I agree that the article is unjustly biased, why is there nothing on this talk page to justify it ? Unless someone posts the points that should be changed, I see no point in keeping the notice up. 00:15, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
OK, the article takes the POV that special relativity is paradoxical and broken and that autodynamics is today a leading unified theory contender, It needs some supporting citations if those claims are to stand. Gazpacho 06:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but for now how do we go around correcting the POV ? We can't wait forever for a fan to support these dubious contentions. Franc28 06:27, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
*  Actually, I haven't seen anyone argue that autodynamics is a "leading unified theory contender".  It is a theory, like many other theories and deserves the simple, basic respect of being presented as such.  What's at issue here on this autodynamics page is the refusal to offer a neutral presentation of the life, let alone, the theory of one  Dr. Ricardo Carezani.  Instead there are only repeated, endless, tedious attempts to dig up disparaging dismissals of his work in order to eagerly scrawl 'crackpot' epithets on his work.   (For example, the proudly displayed quote from  Wired Magazine  (Oh, yes, we're supposed to say  'popular' Wired Magazine... Being 'popular' makes the crackpot smear quite acceptable, doesn't it?  Well Good Housekeeping and  National Enquirer are also popular, shall we take them too as reliable sources on Carezani or Einstein for that matter?  I don't think so.)  One really wonders what the problem is when a specific club of pseudoencyclopedians are permitted to pretend to be writing an encyclopedic entry, ostensibly a factual report of a subject, without POV judgment, but instead, manages never to address  the life or work of Carezani in anything mildly approaching a neutral report.   Instead, we receive always one more new, superficial, unsupported comment to dismiss it.   Even when they pretend to present the science of the work, they choose the presentation of a confused supporter, rather than turn to the expert on the subject, Carezani himself.  I for one, although it's apparently hopeless, would like to see an article about what Carezani wrote and thought and not what a few biased torpedoes would like me to think about it.  And if that's not possible a one paragraph statement that he was born, lived, worked on an alternative theory of Physics and died would suffice, thank you very much.  One single statement that his theory has not been adopted by mainstream physics would be factual and sufficient. Endless insidious smear  and innuendo dismissals are not.   You see, if I come in  to read an article on Carezani, I am coming in to read an article about Carezani and I'm not not coming in to read what Salsb, Christopher Thomas , Pjacobi and their collaborators may want me to think about him.  4.233.125.39 18:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias and POV concerns

message: First, the neutrino is claimed to have been detected because it is detected indirectly.  Second, AD is was not invented but discovered because of a mistake in the physics of Lorentz, not Einstein which Einstein accepted without question.  Third, an eletro-muon-like particle was discovered after Carezani predicted it.
Also, AD (Autodynamics) is not a theory of "everything" like strings.  Strings are admittly invention (by the authors themselves) and Autodynamics was a discovery.
* Citation for the "electro-muon-like" particle's discovery, please? --Christopher Thomas 01:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad rewrite 

message: I'll open this subsection as a place to discuss the references cited.
Regarding the "new RaE experiment" paper, the mass of the beta decay electron seems to have been counted twice, as the atomic weights of the elements include their electrons, and 84Po has one more electron than 83Bi. This pretty much exactly accounts for the "discrepancy" noted by the cited article (1.16 MeV vs. 1.67 MeV).
Secondly, can we _please_ get peer-reviewed articles, if articles are being cited? We only need enough non-reviewed articles to explain what Autodynamics _is_, as only reviewed articles constitute actual evidence for the model. --Christopher Thomas 00:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious references 

message: Come on, I understand your concern about unbias but these statements are simply absurd:
"Whereas in its days of creation, the theory may have had some valid arguments, it considered by most physicists to have evolved into pathological science by now."
What the heck is that?  Are you saying AD was ok in the beginning and isn't now?
That statement is not understandable by anyone.
Also, AD is NOT a theory of everything.  Strings are an invention (admitted invention) to try and explain everything. AD is not.
Please, don't say things that are not true.  Sweeping statements are not part of the unbaised thesis of wiki.
-David de Hilster
* I've rolled back this and other changes. The "pathological science" statement indicates that it is _presently_ pursued in a pathological manner. I have attempted to clarify this. If you believe that this was _always_ or _never_ the case, then provide citations, and alter the statement accordingly. If you believe the statement should be phrased differently, then rephrase it. I'll keep your modification to the introductory sentence, as the "theory of everything" comment does not appear to be based on cited evidence. --Christopher Thomas 02:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is this stuff? 

message: The particles neutrino and electro-muon are not the major thesis of Autodynamics.  If you "think" you know about Autodynamics, than I must say that the reposting of that sad "theory of everything" and neutrinos, and has become psuedo science is not an accurate description of Autodynamics.
Please be accurate even if you don't understand it.
Thanks,
-David de Hilster
* The paragraph correctly points out that the predictions of Autodynamics conflict with the predictions and observations made by mainstream science. Keep removing this statement, and you'll quickly realize that most editors respect NPOV enough to put it back in. If you believe any of the statements made in the article to be incorrect, please provide justification on the talk page, and citations in the article. --Christopher Thomas 02:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't republish that rant on the particles 

message: An anon poster had placed this here, and then removed it to the article text. I've moved it back, but kept the web link. Salsb 20:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted text 

message: This is their "peer-review" statement:
:"Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers' comments. Authors should judge which part of the reviewers' suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. "
:
This is not what would normally be considered peer-review, and Physics Essays is moderately well-known as a vanity press journal.
:Here is the result of an abstract and citation search for autodynamics on Web of Science:
:Carezani RL
:Nucleus-nucleus collision and autodynamics 
:PHYSICS ESSAYS 10 (2): 193-197 JUN 1997 
::Times Cited: 0 
:CAREZANI RL
:THE COMPTON-EFFECT AND AUTODYNAMICS 
:PHYSICS ESSAYS 6 (3): 384-388 SEP 1993 
::Times Cited: 0 
:CAREZANI RL
:THE MUON DECAY MU+-]E+E+E- AND AUTODYNAMICS 
:PHYSICS ESSAYS 5 (1): 19-25 MAR 1992 
::Times Cited: 1 
Three "essays" by the same author in the same "journal", and the one citation these three articles receive is a self-citation, the 1997 essay cites the 1992 essay.
pretty clear pseudoscience . Salsb 9 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
IS  not and vanity press publishing journal.
"Given there "peer-review" policy, it is hard to consider Physics Essays as anything else. Furthermore, after conducting a citation search, I found a total of four papers from this entire journal, since 1992, for which I could identify citations outside the journal. Three of those papers were cited by papers that never had another citation. The remaining one paper was cited once as part of a list of articles dealing with the origin of the second law, with no other disscussion. This is the whole contribution of Physics essays to the rest of the scientific community.Virtually all individual scientific papers have a better citation record than this entire journal Salsb 20:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, its so-called "peer-review" policy, and its poor citation record by other journals makes that it clear thar Physics Essays is not a reputable source. {and you do have a physicist telling you about the quality of this "journal" } 22:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that.  For illustration, go to SPIRES, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/search/, the main database for high-energy and theoretical physics literature.  They don't even include Physics Essays in their default list of journals.  The lack of peer review means that papers, including Carezani's, are not checked for accuracy, and the journal is well-known for publishing pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophical nonsense. 
OT
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
Physical Review Volume 70, Numbers 3 and 4 August 1 and 15, 1946
Calorimetric Experiment on the Radiation Losses of 2-MeV Electrons [1]
W. W. Buechner and R. J. Van de Graaff
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received May 21, 1946)
Abstract
Various investigators report from cloud-chamber experiments that the energy lost in the scattering of 2-Mev beta rays is several times the loss calculated from the Bethe-Heitler theory. However, other experimenters have found that the production of x-rays in this range agrees with theory. To account for the extra energy loss, Klarmann and Bothe and Champion have suggested the emission of neutrinos as well as x-rays. To test this hypothesis, a 2-Mev beam of electrons was directed on a target immersed in mercury, the assembly acting as a calorimeter. Experiments using beryllium, gold, and mercury targets show that within the experimental error, which is somewhat less than one percent, no energy is carried out of the calorimeter by neutrinos or other penetrating radiation. It thus appears that the production of such radiations cannot account for the large extra energy losses reported from cloud-chamber experiments.
I don't know why this abstract is here. It's the one cited in the article, which autodynamics proponents cite, but which is completely consistent with current scientific understanding. If neutrinos had been detected that would have been novel, and would have confirmed a new hypothesis.   Salsb 23:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  end deleted text 

message: William Connolley: I would like to know were is your objectivity regarding deprecatory statements about Autodynamics which are not referenced, have no name attributions and are in factual error?209.29.95.52 16:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of objectivity