Talk:Autodynamics/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Archives
2 Agreement with facts re small velocities
3 Example Calculation Replaced
4 Something needs to be changed
5 This is getting into "original research"
6 NPOV section
7 Opinion?
8 NPOV Dispute
9 Make a list
10 Discussion of (8)
- 10.1 Another attempt
11 Evidence on Autodynamics
12 Non-evidence on Autodynamics
13 Relativistic?
14 "We" indeed are disputing AD's usage of relativity
15 Infobox

Agreement with facts re small velocities

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. 209.29.97.61 (talk • contribs) (the dialup.ca.telus.com anon, TELUS Communications Inc. in Toronto) 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

READ THE CITED REFERENCE! It gives quite clearly the AD velocity addition formula and states 1.41 km/h exactly. Also, it's straight off teh AD website. Someone (preferably a proponent) needs to explain the AD 'refutation' of this (i.e. that presupposing frames of reference leads to error). I tried, but it seems some editor didnt like my verison. Also, thanks to whoever made the math equation prettier. Cynicalkane 02:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I just realized somebody deleted the cited reference. Well, it sure is easy to make the skeptics "look silly" when some fool is deleting their references! Cynicalkane 02:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The cited reference was not deleted. I just moved it to an inline link.--CSTAR 02:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"If you do not keep to the truth of the original record of facts and statements when criticizing an idea or a system, what is it that you quarrel with but a scare-crow that can be safely dismissed?" 209.29.97.61 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

One does not try to apply the equation for the area of a triangle to determine the volume of a cylinder, then claim geometry to be flawed because they obtain an irrelevant answer. The AD sum velocity equation applies to cases of successive decay (hence the name, “Autodynamics”) and not to people walking around on a street (kinematics). This would be a complete misuse of the equation. There is a very detailed explanation of this exact misunderstanding on the AD website, as referenced by dehilster (“article on the Sum Velocity”); has anyone bothered to read it fully? The AD sum velocity equation also conserves energy and momentum at non-relativistic speeds. There is no problem with the speeds used in the example; the problem is with the nature of the example itself. The paragraph in question is rather more of a “simple and obvious proof” that the opponent author does not understand even the most basic concepts of AD and it should be removed.--Tbainbri 08:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Example Calculation Replaced

Since Pjacobi found it reasonable to revert the deletion of the improperly applied example calculation without any response to my comment, I have replaced the incorrect example with one for which the equation is relevant. If you choose to delete it, then the burden of proof is now upon you to explain why my example is not more faithful to AD than the previous.--Tbainbri 15:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the web site in question,

"You are right. There is no mistake in your calculation.

Classic Mechanics give 2 km/h SR gives 1.9999 km/h AD gives 1.41 km/h

The website explicity confirms that the calculation is correct.

I am not arguing with the calculations. They are correct (1.41 km/h is the correct answer); it is the application of the equation to a kinematic phenomenon that I am arguing against.--Tbainbri 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

When confronted with the fact that this violates Newtonian mechanic, and common sense, the reply is

Might I remind you that SR, with its time dilation and length contraction, violates Newtonian mechanics and common sense. Conservation of energy is not a violation of Newtonian mechanics nor of common sense.--Tbainbri 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

'As we said before, our answer was not clear enough for a physicist saturated with "SR's systems in relative motion." He cannot realize that the third person, or body, in the "ground," doesn't conserve energy regarding CM or SR, because the phenomena are unrelated. Of course, the difference is not in the high (relativistic) or low velocity, the difference is only conceptual, or more precisely, physical. As will be explained, the difference is that there is no connection among the three phenomena or the three different "Bobs."'

Read the AD webpage. Look at the calculations (or do them yourself). Using CM or SR to describe an autodynamic phenomenon gives double the kinetic energy that was available to begin with. Again, the AD sum velocity equation is conceptually completely different from CM or SR.--Tbainbri 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Further down, in reference to the calculation "We take B = 9.26 10^-7 (1000 Km/h) not 9.26 10^-10 ::(1 km/h) because the qBasic program that we are using will not show significative numbers when a ::quantity very close to 1 is subtracted from 1."

So the use of a larger number is solely due to a defect in their program.

Salsb 16:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant. The calculations work just fine at 1km/h, as long as you have a calculator that will compute that many significant digits. If it is that important to you, just change the exponent of the results on the web page.--Tbainbri 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This is addressing the phrase " but at velocities 1000 fold higher in order to facilitate calculation with significant numbers." so we can agree that magnitudes are irrelevant Salsb 16:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Whether one understands Autodynamics to be common sense or not, at least for the purposes of an encyclopedia entry, one ought to be as accurate to the exposition of the theory as possible. If you continue to try to fit this square peg of a walking example into the round hole of the AD sum velocity equation, then one can only conclude that you are willfully trying to deceive would-be readers. If your purpose is simply to criticize AD for what you perceive as faults, then there are plenty of "mainstream" physics forums for you to do that in.--Tbainbri 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The calculation is taken from the autodynamics website itself, so the example {which I did not add, but seems an appropriate example} is presenting autodynamics as autodynamics proponents present it themselves. Note also, we are supposed to be neutral, which means including criticism. Although, this article at present seems closer to positive POV then neutral. Salsb 16:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your point is irrelevant. The calculations work just fine at 1km/h, as long as you have a calculator that will compute that many significant digits.

This is a very confusing remark..are you suggesting this is a computational error?

Also you have violated the 3 revert rule, which according to WP policy should lead an admin to blocking you for 24 hours at least. Maybe you aren't aware of this rule, so I won't block you, but I suggest you stop these reverts. If you are interested in providing a description of autodyanmics which you think is more accurate than the present one, please do so on a separate page (you can do this in your user directory) and point readers of this talk page to that exposition where it can be discussed.

That discussion should at the very least address fundamental issues of how coordinate transformations work.

Thanks.--CSTAR 16:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, magnitudes are irrelevant. And yet again, yes the calculations are correct (the numbers have been successfully plugged into a calculator to return a mathematically correct result). There is no computational error. The reason for using 1000 km/h is explained quite clearly on the website:

'We take B = 9.26 10^-7 (1000 Km/h) not 9.26 10^-10 (1 km/h) because the qBasic program that we are using will not show significative numbers when a quantity very close to 1 is subtracted from 1. Nothing will change.'

If your method of calculation does not have this shortcoming, then by all means, use 1 km/h.

The physical example that you are repeating from the AD webpage is simply a quoted example by another newcomer to AD that did not understand the conceptual difference in the AD sum velocity equation from the SR sum velocity equation. Since people try so frequently to interpret AD with an SR mindset, the author of the article on the website thought it would be a useful tool to present the common misunderstanding and to show why it is wrong. Is this not obvious? Have you not read any further down the page? It is dishonest of anyone to pass off this example as an accurate reflection of the concepts of AD without the author's proceeding refutation.

See the webpage:

'AD applies to DECAY cases. Body 1, with mass equal 10, and traveling at B = 9.26 10E-7 decays into body 2, with mass 9.999 999 999 995 712, that, traveling at the same velocity, decays into body 3, with mass = 9.999 999 999 991 424.'

'In AD, also, the successive phenomena are observed by the "same observer." There only is one observer. There are not "systems in relative motion."'

How can we proceed if people are not making any effort to understand the fundamentals that are already presented in full detail on the website?

I was unaware of the 3 revert rule. Though, whether I am blocked or not seems to matter little since anything that I edit is immediately replaced by those who have no understanding of the theory. Responses appear to already be circular and I am not seeing any attempt for people to see the truth. As I mentioned before:whether or not you agree with AD is unimportant to me, but you should at the very least use proper examples for your straw men.--Tbainbri 17:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Something needs to be changed

Something has to be done about the incorrect application of the AD velocity sum equation. At the very least, the phrase "According to Autodynamics" needs to be replaced with something more neutral. At best, the example itself should reflect the meaning of the math. Anyone with a basic understanding of this equation knows that it only applies to successive phenomena with related KE's. Alice, Bob and Carla, in this example, have no energetic relationship to each other, as would a particle undergoing successive decays. In AD, there are no frames in relative motion; Alice doesn't need to know Bob's velocity in order to know Carla's, she can measure Carla's velocity directly. Each phenomenon is unrelated and is measured independently. This equation simply doesn't apply to Alice, Bob and Carla as the hypothetical situation is setup. Let's do something about this. We could just go back and forth reverting each other three times a day, everyday, but that doesn't seem too productive.--Tbainbri 04:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

OK I suggested you write an account of this in a subpage (or here on the talkpage) so it can be discussed. If it meets a minimal standard of internal consistency it could be a possible section: "Addition of velocities in autodynamics" --CSTAR 04:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, here is a basic explanation. Let's discuss.--Tbainbri 03:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK as far as I'm concerned it seems reasonable but you still need to explain more clearly what the v_i's are. Are they like "boosts?".--CSTAR 03:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

How about if I answer the question indirectly by reminding the reader of the connection between the rest masses and motion masses of bodies in successive decay(see update)? A complete explanation would probably require yet another section describing Carezani's frame reduction. I've referenced 3 articles that explain the concept in detail, however I believe one can understand it intuitively by thinking of the rest mass/motion mass relationship.--Tbainbri 04:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you edit the article directly replacing the paragraphs starting at In autodynamics relative velocities do not add in a linear fashion. --CSTAR 05:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the recent addition. It fails to state what exactly is being added in the velocity-addition formula. All velocities are relative. SO, as best as I can understand from the nonsenical gobbeldygook on the AD website If the v_is are boosting the thing being observed, what are they boosting? Relative to what? They can't be boosts relative to the observer, because then you get mathematical nonsense; i.e., a delta-V of 1 mph relative to the observer on something moving 1 mph relative to the observer results in a final velocity of 1.41 mph relative to the observer, which is nonsense. Cynicalkane 03:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to write anything sensible about this gobbledygook, clearly. I suppose that what is currently written is as close as we'll ever get to an explanation of the meaning of the addition formula. Unfortunately, there is no WP style guide on writing about crackpot theories.

Also the TeX formula subscripts need to be fixed.--CSTAR 03:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The answer to your question lies at the core of the derivation of AD: the frame reduction. Body 1 decays into body 2, and body 2 into body 3, etc. Each phenomenon (decay) is observed independently. The observer places the origin of his coordinate system so that the body passes through it at t=0(there is no reference frame in AD; see the three articles referenced). If we set the coordinate system into relative motion before there is any phenomenon, then we've mathematically introduced artificial energy into the system. Placement of the coordinate system does not change the relativity between the observer and phenomenon. The velocity from the sum velocity equation is that of the body with the last mass that has a KE equivalent to the sum of the KE's of the previous bodies.

"THe velocity from the sum velocity equation" singular? There's more than one! What are the v_i's and what is v_n? You will have to give these things strict, physically meaningful definitions, or your ideas will simply not fly with anyone. Cynicalkane 09:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have made no effort to understand what I had written above. Yes, "The velocity from the sum velocity equation", singular. (Must we resort to arguing semantics?) There is only one velocity that comes from the equation (v_n); the other velocities are plugged in to the equation. The last sentence of my paragraph above answers your question as to what v_n is. The fourth and fifth sentences explain that there are no initial relative velocities and why. Finally, these are not my ideas; I am only repeating what is explained in detail on the AD website and in the AD book. I imagine it must be very difficult to "fly" with ideas that one has not even attempted to comprehend. --Tbainbri 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If I get some more time, maybe I'll add an example with numbers and a comparison with SR (although this has already been done on the AD website, "Systems in relative motion/Sum velocity").

There is a forum on Yahoo Groups, if you are actually interested in trying to understand the 'gobbledygook' of this 'crackpot theory'; it's a better place to ask questions than this discussion page.--Tbainbri 05:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This is getting into "original research"

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)

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)

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)

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)

New look at microwave background may cast doubts on big bang theory

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17752

Light that travels faster than the speed of light From Science Blog

http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html?q=node/8725

Has ESA's XMM-Newton cast doubt over dark energy?

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMRHL274OD_Expanding_0.html

An invisible hand? Aug 19th 2004 From The Economist print edition An unexplained effect during solar eclipses casts doubt on General Relativity

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3104321

A review of conventional explanations of anomalous observations during solar eclipses

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf

NPOV section

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)

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)

Opinion?

An edit summary of a major deletion claims NPOV: This is obviously opinion. Why?--CSTAR 21:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

For example, on [7], a Lorentz contraction is incorrectly applied to the distance between a stationary observer and a moving object.

The example in [7] is essentially the same as Feynman’s (Lectures on Physics, Volume I, Section 15-5), where a Lorentz contraction is applied to the distance between Moe and Point P.

Hello, that was my edit. The AD reference applies a Lorentz transformation to the distance between the observer's origin and a moving object, while still using the observer's own ruler and clock. This is an error. The distance from a stationary observer to a moving object does not Lorentz-transform by the velocity of the object. That's how SR works, on point of fact, not opinion. The AD example uses SR incorrectly.

First of all, it does not make logical sense to talk of velocity between a stationary observer and a moving object. Either there is a relative motion between the two, or there is not; you can't have it both ways. If the origin of system F and P's system (F’’, for instance) coincide, and the origin of F’ passes through the origin of F and F’’ at t=0, it is not conceptually inconsistent with SR to apply a Lorentz transformation. (Note: Besides this, statements of correctness/incorrectness are not considered acceptable according to Wikipedia:NPOV.)--Tbainbri 05:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You are sitting on the roadside. You are the observer. A car moves past you. It makes sense for you to talk about a "stationary" observer and a "moving object", no? Your friend is in the car. He's radioing back to you about his observations of his own car, of the view out the window, of his measurements of the speeds of passing cars. It makes sense to talk about a moving observer. You say "it is not conceptually inconsistent to apply a Lorentz transformation"---it's a very specific transformation, not a general concept. It does not transform distances whenever it sees something in motion. To apply the SR equations, you ask *which observer* is looking at *which ruler* and *which clock*. The equation tells you what will happen if the rulers, clocks, and observers have relative motion between them. That's what it does, and it's abundantly documented how it does it. In your example, you'd need to specify which observer---the one in F or the one in F"---is looking at which distance on which ruler. If you specify this and apply the transformations, then you're doing SR correctly. If you just "apply the transformations", you're tossing equations around randomly. (I know the NPOV policy. However, there's nothing wrong with saying "X is wrong" if it's factually wrong, you can document it, and no one disagrees. I *am* allowed to try to convince you, tbainbri, on the merits.)

In your example, you'd need to specify which observer---the one in F or the one in F"---is looking at which distance on which ruler.

This is insane! It makes no difference: F and F" are indistinguishable! If I instead label P's system to F and label what was previously system F to system F", how does that change anything? They still have the same relationship to each other and to F’.--Tbainbri 14:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

On [6], the AD authors incorrectly claim that reference frames are "unnecessary" and "cannot be measured".

It is not incorrect simply because someone says it is so. At the minimum, if this statement is to be left in the article, it should at least be stated why the claim is incorrect.

It is incorrect because it's complete nonsense. A reference frame can be defined arbitrarily; it can be attached to a concrete object, like a rocket or a car; it can carry people, telescopes, rulers, and clocks. The AD statement that they "cannot be measured" is like rejecting the construction of straight lines in a geometric proof. The whole point of SR is to figure out how a phenomenon will appear differently to observers moving at different speeds. We label each observer, and each phenomenon, with a reference frame as a geometric construction to make the math more intuitive. Imagine if AD said, "SR talks about moving observers. This is unneccessary, since these observers are fictional and cannot be measured."

Again, it is not complete nonsense simply because you say it is so (or perhaps because you don't understand it). Reference frames are unneccessary because all measurements can be made with respect to the frame of the observer. It's as simple as that. The phenomenon doesn't need a "label". If I'm on the ground and someone is running on a moving train, I don't need to know the speed of the train and the speed of the runner with respect to the train to determine the speed of the runner with respect to myself; I can measure the speed of the runner directly (frame reduction). By the way, I have yet to see a reference frame "carry people, telescopes, rulers, and clocks" as you say. Since reference frames are abstract, artificial constructions, it must be a fantastic sight indeed!--Tbainbri 05:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can measure the speed of the runner. If you look at the SR equations, you'll see that your measurement of the runner's speed does not require any transformations: you measure the runner's position at two different times, and divide to get the velocity. The runner could look back and do the same for you; he or she will get the same answer for the velocity, and neither of you have to know how fast the train is moving. You'd both get the right answer, even, if you didn't know relativity. Why would you use this as an example of frames being superfluous? The train's frame *is* superfluous here. However, a person sitting *on the train* could also make both measurements. Shouldn't he get a consistent answer, too? Shouldn't physics be *able to* tell us what the results of his measurements would be? SR does that, and it does it with frames. I have asked AD supporters, several times, to demonstrate their ideas using well-constructed textbook problems, which are very clear about who does which measurement with which ruler, but they have refused. -bm

On [8], the AD authors label a Lorentz length contraction as an "extra velocity" and attribute energy to it; this leads to the claim that SR do not conserve energy and momentum. This claim further rests on the AD assumption that the neutrino does not exist.

Actually, this statement is alright (although the extra energy is a consequence of the extra velocity, not an attribution from AD authors). I’ll put it back. --Tbainbri 22:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, the mistake is a simple factual one, as in [6]. The AD source applies the Lorentz transformation (perhaps correctly this time, although they don't specify the ruler) to a length x. If an observer is moving with respect to the object at a velocity beta (parallel to x), the same distance is measured as x' = (x * sqrt(1-beta^2)) on the observer's ruler. Clearly the distance has *changed*, but it is strictly *incorrect* to label this change as an extra velocity. A velocity means that a distance *changes over time*. Both x and x' are unchanging with time. The difference between x' and x simply cannot be interpreted as a velocity; it's two different fixed numerical values, percieved by different observers, for a single object. It doesn't even have the right units. (If the velocity of the object or the observer is changing, then different SR equations need to be applied to the system, which is now non-inertial.) That's not POV, that's a factual description of SR.

From special relativity, section "Space, time and velocity":

If the observer in $S$ sees an object moving along the $x$ axis at velocity $w$ then the observer in the $S'$ system will see the object moving with velocity $w'$ where

$w'=\frac{w-v}{1-wv/c^2}$ .

We obtain this equation by taking the derivative of the Lorentz equations:

$\frac{dx'}{dt}=\frac{\frac{dx}{dt}-v}{\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}}$

$\frac{dt'}{dt}=\frac{1-\frac{vdx}{c^2dt}}{\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}}$

Therefore

$\frac{dx'}{dt'}=w'=\frac{\frac{dx}{dt}-v}{1-\frac{vdx}{c^2dt}}=\frac{w-v}{1-wv/c^2}$

x is the distance of the event from origin in system S and is supposed to be at rest as an initial condition. However, the event has a velocity with respect to system S' and it simultaneously starts to move in system S! $w=\frac{dx}{dt}$ ! There is no physical connection between S and S', yet the velocity between S' and the event leads to a velocity between S and the event, via the derivation.

This is the "extra velocity" and hence the "extra energy" provided by Lorentz. Regardless, I don't have a problem with having the statement ("On [8]...") in the article. It's neutral enough for me and I immediately added it back after the edit. Also, I don't believe this is really the appropriate place to be arguing SR versus AD. I am more interested in coming to an agreement on neutral language for the article since the AD/SR argument, if continued, will never end. Perhaps since they are your (Salsb) edits, you might suggest a more neutral way of saying what you'd like to say.--Tbainbri 05:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: the second deleted sentence. How about

On [6], the AD authors make the controversial claim that reference frames are "unnecessary" and "cannot be measured".

--CSTAR 22:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair.--Tbainbri 22:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that you're at this, would it be possible for you to provide some short explanation as to what the v_i's are in the velocity addition formula, because apparently they don't mean what we (e.g. non-autodyanamicists) think they mean? Thanks. Also your footnote syntax should be change to conform to the Wikipedia format. --CSTAR 23:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. Do you want the explanation to be put directly into the article or do you want to discuss it here first --Tbainbri 23:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If it's not too long I don't see a problem if you put it directly in the article. But someone else may disagree, so it's up to you.--CSTAR 00:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've made the changes and spent some time cleaning up the reference format. However, Salsb and William_M._Connolley continue to revert, without discussion, citing "removal of neutral comments" and NPOV (without at least leaving the cleaned-up references). This revert game could be easily avoided if people would simply provide references for their assertions or at least attempt to discuss them here. I'm not going to waste my time adding more explanation of the velocity sum formula until we can come to some agreement on exactly what is considered NPOV in this article.--Tbainbri 17:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I said Too many statements deleted with dubious claims of NPOV because thats what I meant. For example, you removed: Although AD supporters present several examples of purported "inconsistencies" on its Web pages, these examples do not correctly utilize SR to begin with. For example... for no obvious reason. William M. Connolley 20:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

It's quite clear to me what you meant. However, simply saying something is incorrect does not make it so. If someone is going to assert that examples on the web pages do not correctly utilize SR, they better be able to back that up. Unsubstantiated assertions about correctness/incorrectness is hardly NPOV. I believe this is a rather obvious reason.--Tbainbri 20:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would do Salsb and William_M._Connolley some good to read Wikipedia:NPOV:

To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct.

The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.

Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness).

--Tbainbri 14:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

At the moment of writing, there have been nine reverts between Oct. 31st and Nov. 2nd (admittedly, nearly half of them were from myself). I believe that I've made reasonable attempts at a discussion of the edit under dispute, however neither of the other players in this revert game seem to be interested in cooperating. I've outlined specifically what comments (IMO) fail to have Wikipedia:NPOV and why (although the reasoning seems so obvious as to not require an explanation). William_M._Connolley claims that I have removed too many statements for no obvious reason, despite the fact that even a quick glance on this talk page will show that not to be the case. Salsb does not even bother with explanations; he simply makes vague comments indicating that he believes his edit was neutral. I suggest that the article be reverted to the version prior to the edits which are under dispute and frozen until we can settle this. Reverting each other every day is rather pointless. A willingness to work together in keeping this article neutral and informative would be appreciated.--Tbainbri 00:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Tbainbri, I would point out that it is not neutral, nor informative, to treat SR and mainstream physics as two sides in a he-said-she-said debate. Relativity is documented factually on the special relativity pages, based entirely on mainstream refereed research with 100 years of support. If some AD supporter comes over here and says "SR claims X, but it is wrong", that's POV. Saying "SR claims X, but AD disputes this" is inappropriate, given the very rigorous mathematical basis of SR. The most encyclopedic way to say it, IMO, would be "SR claims X. AD disputes this, but the critique is based on a misapplication of the Lorentz transformation." That doesn't apply to "AD claims to explain X", which I guess fall under the Wikipedia:NPOV pseudoscience policy, but it really must apply to the "SR is wrong about ..." claims. My proposed solution: let's create an article called Common misunderstandings of Special Relativity. Each AD denial of SR gets the tagline ... " But this is claim is based on common misunderstandings of special relativity." This would be educational, and it would fulfill the idea that science need not fear untrue claims, if it can explain the truth clearly. Also, it would be useful for future pages on crackpots. -bm

bm, First of all, I have never added anything to the article that even remotely implies that AD is either accepted or is more correct than SR. Saying "SR claims X, but AD disputes this" is stating a neutral fact (it is also a suggested method in Wikipedia:NPOV: "p's believe this, q's believe that"). It is simply true that AD disputes aspects of SR. It is also true that SR is accepted and AD is not. Both statements are factual and without bias. If we do not point out the distinction between AD and SR, then there is little point in having an article on AD at all. What would be left to say about it? This article is about Autodynamics, not the current accepted state of mainstream physics. It is already in the "Obsolete Theories" section and my edits never take the position that AD is "correct" and SR is not. I am wholly in disagreement with your suggestion of stating:

AD disputes this, but the critique is based on a misapplication of the Lorentz transformation.

Sorry, I didn't mean to criticize the current edit, which is pretty good. Some past edits have given the last word to AD too many times. -bm

I find this quite dangerous because it begs the question: who gets to decide that the problem is due to a misapplication of the Lorentz transformation?

Tbainbri, the difference between a correct and an incorrect SR solution is a matter of simple fact. Anyone who knows SR should be able to tell the difference between the AD statement on references [6][7][8], and the SR solutions of the same problems given in physics textbooks. The errors are utterly standard ones, which appear on a large fraction of Freshman physics problem sets. The solution here is for a few WP editors *who know SR* to look at the AD claims and see whether they use the equations correctly. They don't have to understand the rest of AD, they don't need to compare theory to experiment: AD presents its examples in the form "This is what SR says would happen. Clearly this is wrong." All we have to do is analyze the first part: is that indeed what SR says? My analysis says no. I can provide more detail if desired. Anyone else is free to chime in. If we had another crackpot theory which stated "Time Cube argues that Pythagoras was wrong, because the so-called identity sin(x) + cos(x) = 1 is false for x=pi/2", it would be appropriate for an editor to step in and say "... but this is claim misstates the premises of geometry to begin with."

The solution here is for a few WP editors *who know SR*...

Ah, yes... we "crackpots" can't possibly fathom the magical depths of SR. It is beyond our comprehension, so you must be right. What a terrific argument, your holiness.--Tbainbri 14:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion of "common misunderstandings of special relativity" taglines has the same problem: who gets to decide that the claim is based on a misunderstanding of SR? The AD equations have been published in a peer reviewed journal (see [9] of the current edit of the article). Autodynamics was not rejected on faulty concept nor failure of mathematics nor on a misunderstanding of SR, it was rejected because its predictions did not agree with the results of the experiment.--Tbainbri 05:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the one refereed article is the one where AD is shown to disagree with an experiment. This article does *not* present a detailed analysis of AD, nor any of its claims that SR is untenable. These claims---"SR is untenable because of thought-experiments X,Y, and Z"---are the big issue, in my mind, in this WP article, and these claims are *not* mentioned in the Phys Rev A article. AD's claims of SR trouble are similar to many crackpot claims, and were probably rejected around 1906, when early physics students made the same mistakes, drew the same conclusions, and were corrected.

It's really quite sad. The students were absolutely right, but their mentors set back progress in physics another 100 years (and billions of dollars). Someday it will be recognized as a terrible tragedy of arrogance and ignorance.--Tbainbri 14:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a misrepresentation, based on what the article says: A 1999 article in the popular magazine Wired [2] quotes Pierre Noyes, a professor at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, as claiming "most scientists consider Autodynamics little more than a 'crackpot theory'". Despite this, Noyes et al. performed an experiment in an attempt to compare the predictions of SR and AD, but concluded that the values calculated by SR were significantly closer to what was observed[9].. Which I interpret as: people think its crackpot. In an effort to put a stake through its undead heart, someone once bothered to test it, and discovered it was, as expected, wrong. I can't see how you interpret that as favourable to AD. William M. Connolley 12:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC).

I never said that it was favorable to AD. First of all, people don't publish tests of crackpot theories in Physical Review. Obviously today it is considered crackpot (although that is slowly changing); at the time, it was not (hence the inclusion of AD in "Obsolete Theories"). Have you read the article? The SLAC version is freely available here. It states that the theory was tested as an alternative explanation for understanding why the energy expected from beta decay did not show up in a calorimeter (the modern explanation, of course, is the neutrino) because the early tests of neutrino theory were not very convincing. The paper goes on to mention Carezani's frame reduction and simplification of the Lorentz equations. If there were an obvious flaw in the math, concept or a misunderstanding of SR which led to the AD equations, then why would they bother publishing then not mention that at all? In fact, the conclusion rejects AD based on experimental data, not for any of the reasons above. Of course, this is because the SR equations (which are a subset of AD in the special case of external energy being provided) work just fine in this experiment. It's rather unconvincing to state that Carezani does not understand SR or the Lorentz transformation.--Tbainbri 13:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did they bother? Because the experiment was trivial. They just read out the temperature data from the SLAC beam dump (data already available, but previously used only by the accelerator engineers), while the beam was running anyway for other experiments, and did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the heat capacity of the dump. It would have taken all of four hours. -bm

Make a list

Could I ask tbainri to make a list of the contentious statements in two columns: one column for tbainri's version and the other column for the other version. Then I propose that these be discussed 1 by 1. --CSTAR 15:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable idea. I'll work on it as time permits.--Tbainbri 15:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems a little premature to remove the NPOV tag, since the dispute hasn't been resolved.--Tbainbri 03:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

**Statements Under Dispute**
Statement #	Salsb	Tbainbri
1	Although a legitimate question in the 1940s, the result is clearly consistent with mainstream relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics.	Publications of the phenomenon basically stop after the 1940s. Energy losses were always greater than the hypothesized explanations (e.g. length of path of absorber, unknown mechanism stopping the electron catastrophically, production of x-rays and neutrinos). If someone can find a reference that uses the "Standard Model of particle physics" to predict the energy losses to a reasonable degree (a 50% difference between theoretical and experimental values is not reasonable), then I'll be fine with leaving this sentence as it is. Otherwise I suggest that it be removed completely. Reference: the Particle Data Group, [[1]], is the refereed compilation of particle experimental data. Their summary article on the (http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/reviews/passagerpp.pdf) Passage of Particles Through Matter is abundantly referenced. The Bethe-Bloch equation, which is an analytical solution for heavy particles, is accurate to about 1% over a wide range. I don't know where you got your "1940" date or your "50%" number. -bm Oh, wait, you were taking about electron energy loss. Same reference, different (and more complicated) equations. The citations given by the PDG are Seltzer and Berger, Int. J. Appl. Rad. 35, 665 (1984) and "Stopping power for electrons and positrons", ICRU Report #37 (1984). -bm Thank you. I'll have a look at this. Please add this reference to the article.--Tbainbri 00:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Complicated, indeed.. and tedious. You must be jealous that ADists can simply use Carezani's modified version of the Bethe-Heitler equations, which describe the phenomenon beautifully and simply.--Tbainbri 15:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
2	Carezani claims that the results are consistent with AD and, for unclear reasons, inconsistent with relativity.	Carezani claims that the results are consistent with AD.
3	Although AD supporters present several examples of purported "inconsistencies" on its Web pages, these examples do not correctly utilize SR to begin with.	Although AD supporters present several examples of purported inconsistencies on its Web pages, SR in its pure form, is proven to be mathematically consistent (see the Special relativity article) and relativistic energy-momentum conservation has been tested extensively in neutrinoless phenomena.
4	For example, on [7], a Lorentz contraction is incorrectly applied to the distance between a stationary observer and a moving object.	The sentence is POV, doesn't make sense and it also analyzes the example on [7] incorrectly. If there is an observer and an object and a velocity between them, then neither is stationary. I've explained in the "Opinion?" section why the application of the Lorentz transformation is consistent with SR. Regardless, an encyclopedia entry is not the place for an editor to make a personal critique. There is no consensus view to cite because there has never been a publication on the correctness/incorrectness of [7]'s use of the Lorentz transformation. I believe the statement should be removed. Tbainbri, your understanding of SR is erroneous. If I am standing still on the side of a road, the distance x between me and a car traveling at velocity v is x=vt. There is no Lorentz transformation involved, because the observation is done entirely with clocks and rulers at rest with respect to the observer. If I want to measure the length of the car with my stationary ruler, that measurement is Lorentz-contracted when compared to the car's length as measured by a moving ruler (say, carried by the car's occupant.) The AD page acts as though SR transforms the distance to the car, which is incorrect. -bm What if I put some super-glue on my "stationary" ruler, and at the instant the car passes me, I stick it to the car and read the measurement? My ruler is now "stuck to" the car's "frame", but at that instant, x is still zero. Oh me, oh my, what happens when we set x=0 in the Lorentz equations?We obtain the Carezani equations.--Tbainbri 15:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
5	On [6], the AD authors incorrectly claim that reference frames are "unnecessary" and "cannot be measured"	On [6], the AD authors make the controversial claim that reference frames are "unnecessary" and "cannot be measured". The claim "reference frames are unneccessary" would be fine if it were applying to AD. The AD supporters apply this description to SR, where it is a factually incorrect. Reference frames are a geometric construction that SR uses to keep track of moving observers. It's like looking at a geometric proof---say, the construction of a perpendicular bisector---and saying "This arc you claim to scribe is unnecessary and cannot be measured."
6	These equations are easily shown to fail when applied to real-world systems, like observations involving the distances between cars or airplanes.	This is POV. If you use an equation inappropriately, of course it will fail. The AD sum velocity equation does not fail when applied to successive decays (at any velocities). (By the way, this statement also does not make sense because distances are not relevant in these equations; the only variables are mass and velocity.) One could make a neutral statement that the equations failed in [9], but that statement is already in the article. I suggest retaining the statment from the edit prior to Salsb's: A common mistake for someone that is unfamiliar to the conceptual framework of AD is to apply the equation to bodies which are not energetically connected (e.g., people walking around on the street).According to Noyes et al., "The most appropriate application [of the Autodynamics equations] is to spontaneous autodynamics phenomena without contribution of energy from the external medium."

Also, I would appreciate it if Salsb or William_M._Connolley at least returned my reference formatting, since it is apparently not a part of this dispute.--Tbainbri 03:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of (8)

Correction: This is actually point (6). I must need new glasses. --CSTAR 05:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

First comment: Your suggested formulation in (8):

A common mistake for someone that is unfamiliar to the conceptual framework of AD is to apply the equation to bodies which are not energetically connected (e.g., people walking around on the street).According to Noyes et al., "The most appropriate application [of the Autodynamics equations] is to spontaneous autodynamics phenomena without contribution of energy from the external medium."

is also POV. Why is it a mistake? A more neutral formulation would be as follows.

The AD equations are a source of controversy, because when applied to moving bodies such as airplanes and cars, in what appears to be the standard interpretation of the variables. the equations fail. Autodynamics supporters claim that these equations only apply to bodies which are "energetically connected"

Note that I put the phrase "energetically connected" in quotes because I have no idea what that means.--CSTAR 04:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The equation is derived by setting the KE of the first particle (m_0_1) with the velocity of β_n equal to the summation of the KE's of particle m_0_1 with velocity β_1 through particle m_0_[n-1] with velocity β_[n-1]. The KE's must have this "connection" to each other for this to be true, such as in the case of decay, where the rest mass of body_n is equal to the motion mass of body_n-1 (therefore KE_n is dependent on KE_n-1). This is how the equation is derived. If you start plugging in values that have no relation to each other, it will fail, of course. However if you feel that the phrase "energetically connected" is confusing, then we can replace it with undergoing decay. I say "mistake" because this is such a common misunderstanding that Carezani includes this as an example in his book (the same example is repeated on the web page). However, since his book doesn't fall into the category of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, then I suppose you are right that this would be POV.--Tbainbri 13:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How about

The AD equations are a source of controversy, because the equations fail when applied to bodies moving at relatively low speeds such as airplanes and cars, in what appears to be the standard interpretation of the variables in frame of reference calculations. However, autodynamics supporters claim that these equations apply to bodies which are undergoing decay ."

Also I would ask salsb and WMC to look at this particular formulation of this sentence.--CSTAR 15:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the problem here is just so simple, that I'm really not understanding why it's not being recognized. The AD sum velocity is derived (in part by) incorporating AD's mass equation:

$m=m_0 \sqrt{1-\beta^2}$

This assumes that there is a loss of mass due to decay! If the body hasn't converted its mass into energy, then you just don't use the equation! If Moe walks past Joe at 1 km/hr, then you don't use the AD sum velocity equation equation because Moe's mass has no relationship to Joe's mass. The misunderstanding is very, very simple and has absolutely nothing to due with "high" or "low" velocities. (This is why I say it is a common mistake to make if you are unfamiliar with AD's "conceptual framework". AD and SR concepts are incompatible, so applying SR's interpretation of variables in an AD equation is bound to fail.) --Tbainbri 16:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine, let's just apply AD to decays. Let's have the large, complex composite particle "Earth+Joe+baseball". Joe is standing on a skateboard, carrying the baseball. The whole particle "decays"---from a high-potential-energy state to a high-kinetic-energy state---when Joe gets a push forward to 1kph. The large daughter particle "Earth" recoils slightly to conserve momentum. The small daughter particle, "Joe+baseball" decays when Joe throws the baseball forward at 1kph. That's all energetically connected; each "particle" breaks in half and converts some of its internal configuration/mass/binding energy into kinetic energy. The AD equations should apply this time, no? And they give nonsensical results---indeed, the exact same nonsensical results as they give when Joe and Moe were both walking. -bm

...when Joe gets a push forward to 1kph..... and VOILA, we have external energy applied to Joe and the example is moot. Let's try to be honest; this example is kinematics, not autodynamics.--Tbainbri 00:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The energy that "pushed" Joe was *entirely internal* to the decaying Earth+Joe+Baseball particle. The process is a decay: EarthJoeBaseball -> Earth + JoeBaseball + kinetic energy, followed by another decay: JoeBaseball -> Joe + Baseball + kinetic energy. If you want to change "Earth" to "A Cannon" and put it in outer space, be my guest. But it's a single body, having mass but no kinetic energy, changing into two moving bodies with smaller masses. The kinetic energy comes from a tiny, tiny fraction of the mother particle's rest mass. A bit of an extreme case, but why exactly would AD not apply? Where do you think the "external energy" coming from? -bm

It's another case of fitting a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't apply because the AD sum velocity equation uses the following relation of rest mass and motion mass:

$m=m_0 \sqrt{1-\beta^2}$

m 0 - > m + K E

The AD sum velocity equation is derived for one body decaying into another and another (etc.), successively, not one body decaying into two, and two to four, etc.

However, in your example, we have:

JoeBaseball -> (JoeBaseball - Baseball) + Baseball + KE

Therefore

JoeBaseball -> JoeBaseball + KE

which is:

m 0 = (m 0 - m) + m + K E

m 0 = m 0 + K E

a.k.a in SR as:

$m_0 = m \sqrt{1-\beta^2}$

That is where the "external energy" came from. Again, we are doing kinematics in your example.

Oh... but wait, I forgot: the mass increase isn't real in SR. Gosh, I guess that energy must have come from a neutrino then. Let's call it the BM neutrino, because that's what it is.. one, big B.M.

--Tbainbri 03:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tbainbri, your analysis is wrong. In this example, JoeBaseball is *heavier* than the sum of Joe + Baseball. We can weigh them at rest and learn this, just like we know that Uranium 238 is *more massive than* the sum of the masses of its decay products, Th234 and He4. So your substitution of (JoeBaseball - Baseball) for (Joe) is mistaken. The rest mass of the system *changes*. If you want to say the "relativistic mass" changes, that's fine, but then there is no additional kinetic energy. You can write the equation in one of two ways:

M j b e = M j + M b + K E j + K E b

M j b e = g a m m a j M j + g a m m a b M b

In the first version, we talk about kinetic energy *instead of* rest mass (this is preferred); in the second version, we talk about a relativistic mass increase *instead of* kinetic energy. Work through the gammas and you will see that the two expressions are equal. But you don't use both "E = gamma*m + KE".

Woah, hold on there Babe Ruth. I'll assume (like in the joewrench example) that the JOE part of the JOEBASEBALL is burning some glucose in his muscles to throw the baseball. In that case, what the heck is KE_b (ooh, maybe it's the baseball neutrino)?? You see, because in your example we start with a composite that is JOEBASEBALL, but we end with: joe + baseball (and KEs). If the JOE part of JOEBASEBALL decayed then what the heck happened to our poor little baseball? In fact, you're talking again about two decays.

(1) JOE -> joe + KE_j

(2) BASEBALL -> baseball + KE_b

This is fine in AD, but JOE's decay and BASEBALL's decay have nothing to do with each other, so we treat them as two decays because that's what they are. Just because one part decays, doesn't mean the other has to.--Tbainbri 22:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tbainbri: Draw a black box. Joebaseball goes in at rest, later Joe and Baseball come out at high speeds. Unless you're trying to obscure things, you should really restrict your analysis to the initial and final masses, and the initial and final energies and momenta. That's what goes into the SR equations, it's what appears to go into the AD equations. In those terms, the above system satisfies your "decay" criterion; some initial-state mass goes away, and some end-state kinetic energy appears. If you're going to dig into the details of which part of a composite object lost mass, or something, you're going to have to rewrite your decay-vs-kinematics distinction.

Once again: JoeBaseball is a closed system at rest. It spontaneously turns into Joe-flying-away-from-baseball, but you say that is not a decay. Can you apply your analysis to the closed system of a U238 nucleus, which spontaneously turns into Th234-flying-away-from-He4? I'm sure you agree *that* is a decay. But your treatment gives the same answer---you conclude that there's external energy. -bm

Sure, I could easily analyze U238 decay with AD. But why waste my time or space on these discussion pages, since Carezani has already done it (p.149 of the AD book) The computer program for the calculations is here.--Tbainbri 22:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain, in just a sentence, why replacing the words "Joebaseball" with the word "U238" suddenly turns a "kinematics" problem into a "decay" problem.

Also, see peer-reviewed reference [9] in the article. It is accepted that the equations are most appropriately applied to autodynamic phenomena (decay). There is no controversy, at least with regard to this. One person's (Salsb) lack of understanding does not make it controversial.--Tbainbri 17:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Tbainbri you've got a problem here, because though your use of decay sounds less mysterious then "energetically connected" and has some intuitive meaning (corpses that decay), I don't see how you can avoid criticisms like the Joe+Baseball+earth thought experiment proposed above. In fact, I don't see that one can avoid a formulation like the one I proposed -- even that formulation is more favorable to AD than NPOV should allow, because it let's AD get away with referring to a complex process referred to as "decay", in what in what is supposed to be a fundamental theory of nature. Perhaps this is better?

The AD equations are a source of controversy, because the equations fail when applied to bodies moving at relatively low speeds such as airplanes and cars, in what appears to be the standard interpretation of the variables in frame of reference calculations. However, autodynamics supporters insist that these equations apply only to bodies which are undergoing decay and that any application to frames of reference is meaningless."

--CSTAR 23:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are pretending not to know what decay is. Since this seems to be a mystery, let's define decay as a direct conversion of portion of a body's mass into energy, à la

E = m c 2

. --Tbainbri 01:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The equivalence of mass and energy "à la

E = m c 2

E = m c 2

" is a result of special relativity; so does AD replace special relativity, or does it include special relativity. In the first case, how does AD account for

E = m c 2

? In the second case, AD is probably inconsistent. Frankly, I don't care if it's consistent or not, and I have no objection to your providing some explanation. But so far you have not convinced me that my formulation is not neuy=tral.--CSTAR 05:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stress that AD posits "decay" as a primitive process relating states of a body; the successive states are related by the autodynamics formula. This of course is full of pitfalls because howe do you distinguish whether a body moves by autodynamics or by some interaction (eg gravitational pull). Or is all motion "autodyanmical". I can't believe I'm doing this. --CSTAR 05:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR, thanks for the laugh. I am glad you are doing this. You seem to be the only person here, that despite your personal opinion and skepticism, maintains a reasonable POV. AD accepts the mass-energy equivalence given by

E = m c 2

but not the Lorentz transformation (see the various articles and explanations on the frame reduction or simply see my explanation of the Joebaseball example above). Yes, it is a replacement for relativity. The AD equations are for the general case of decay, but when a particle is accelerated by external energy, the AD KE equation evolves to the SR KE equation(although the concepts are quite different):

M = m 0 c 2 + K E

= Rest mass energy + KE

$KE=M(1-\sqrt{1-\beta^2})$ =AD KE equation

$KE=(m_0c^2 + KE)(1-\sqrt{1-\beta^2})$

$KE=m_0c^2 + KE - m_0c^2\sqrt{1-\beta^2} - KE\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$

$0=m_0c^2-m_0c^2\sqrt{1-\beta^2} - KE\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$

$KE\sqrt{1-\beta^2}=m_0c^2-m_0c^2\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$

$KE=m_0c^2(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}-1)$ =SR KE equation

In that case, energy(mass) is absorbed (by the klystron EM field, for example) then decayed to produce the velocity.

As to your question about how to distinguish whether a body moves by autodynamics or some other interaction, the answer is simple: if we know the initial mass and measure the motion mass, then we will know whether or not it was due to decay.

Your suggestion for the article is helpful, but at this point I'm doubting that anything I change will be allowed to stay. It is easy to see the bias here.--Tbainbri 07:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

So let's get this straight: Please confirm or deny:

1. AD has no notion of frames of reference and in particular, no Lorentz transformations relating structures (e.g. observanbles) in one frame of reference to another.

AD uses only the frame of the observer. It does have the Carezani equations (aka simplified Lorentz equations), but these simply represent the extra time/distance that the signal (light) has to travel due to the relative motion. This is not the same concept as in SR where something called "space-time" magically expands or contracts. It is simply a longer time (duration, not dilation!)\distance due to the constancy of the speed of light and relative motion.

2. Does AD have a geometrical structure? e.g., some space time manifold to describe states of bodies?

An emphatic NO! There is nothing magical in AD. AD goes back to common sense concepts.

3. The AD equations are a presumed replacement for the Lorentz transformation relating succesive states of massive bodies to a process of "decay". Is that it?

ehh.. actually I don't understand this question. The AD sum velocity equation was derived for successive decays, so that what you use it for, but in general, equations don't assume anything. As Carezani or Lucy Haye (SAA member) will tell you, just because the equation exists, doesn't mean that the phenomenon does. You just have to be careful to use the right equation for the right event.

4. Joe is on a space walk without the tether attaching him to the spacecraft. In a moment of mental lapse, he flings his wrench, causing him to fly off helplessly into space, in the opposite direction. Why would would AD not apply in this case?--CSTAR 16:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

From www.dictionary.com:

Kinematics:The branch of mechanics that studies the motion of a body or a system of bodies without consideration given to its mass or the forces acting on it.

It doesn't apply for the same reason as Joebaseball doesn't apply. The example doesn't explain where the energy comes from and what has specifically happened to the masses of the parts of the composite. Sure you can just say "oh, well it comes from a conversion of a small amount of mass of the Joe+wrench composite." That still doesn't tell us much.. like what part of the composite? the Joe part or the wrench part or some of both? The problem is more complex, because the Joe part has a different rest mass than the wrench part. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that you have to work with one phenomenon at a time. Maybe the wrench is the part that decays its mass into energy, causing it to fly away from Joe (it wasn't his fault, after all!). In that case, talking about Joe is superfluous (here is the extra frame again). We wouldn't care about Joe because there is no phenomenon at Joe. One observer, one phenomenon; that is Autodynamics in a nutshell.--Tbainbri 17:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tbainbri, any physicist can tell you which mass decreases. The rest mass which is converted to kinetic energy comes from molecules of glucose in Joe's arm muscles. The total mass of a glucose molecule includes some molecular binding energy, amounting to a few eV. The molecule is broken up into carbon dioxide, etc., whose binding energy and mass is lower. This kind of binding energy-as-rest-mass can in principle be measured by weighing the molecules (Pritchard et. al. at MIT are working on this: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2003/ions.html). We're not just making this stuff up. -bm

Oh, I understand glycolysis just fine; I'm a biologist after all. No, you're not making stuff up, but you keep trying to be deceptive (either to yourself or to me or to both of us). Just think about what I'm saying. If you're making the example such that the Joe part of the Joe+wrench composite is that which decays some of his mass to energy, that's fine with me.

The example then becomes:

JOE -> joe + KE.

This is decay in AD.

But it is NOT:

JOEWRENCH -> joe + WRENCH + KE

Nor:

JOEWRENCH -> joe + wrench + KE_j + KE_w

because WRENCH is redundant. WRENCH has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Sorry Tbainbri, that makes no sense. In the final state, the wrench carries some of the kinetic energy and some of the total mass. In writing down the equation, you're trying to keep track of the initial energy and the total final energy and momentum. (A decay of the form A -> B + KE is forbidden by momentum conservation, by the way.)

I'm glad you "seeing the light". You now admit that momentum is not conserved in a decay process in SR.--Tbainbri 17:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course I admit that momentum *would not be* conserved in a decay of the form A->B+KE. There's nothing anti-SR about that statement, though: this process *cannot and does not happen*. All decays lead to at two or more daughters, and conserve momentum. Every one. No exceptions. Look through the listings at [[2]] and find a counterexample if you like. We can also write down the A->B "decay", where M_B > M_A. This also does not occur, because it would violate conservation of energy; the fact that we can write it down does not point to some failure in SR.

JOE=JOEWRENCH-WRENCH -> joe + WRENCH + KE - WRENCH = joe + KE

Therefore

JOE -> joe + KE

It is easy to see that the rest mass comes from JOE, not JOEWRENCH. Now, we agree that mass must decrease by the energy-mass relationship,

E = m 0 c 2

, right? After all, JOE becomes joe, who is less massive. In AD, we represent this relationship (as present several times above), as:

$m=m_0 \sqrt{1-\beta^2}$

You can see by inputting values for v, that at v=0,

m = m 0

. That makes sense. And as the velocity increases towards c, mass tends towards 0. That also makes sense for a body decaying it's mass to energy. Please, please, oh please, tell me how SR represents this mass decrease??Now, I KNOW you're not going to give me the SR mass equation:

$m_0=m \sqrt{1-\beta^2}$

Because certainly a "non-crackpot" like yourself can see that it makes absolutely no sense for mass to increase in a decay process, regardless of how fast it is moving.--Tbainbri 22:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tbainbri, let's be clear here. SR says energy is conserved. A massive particle has energy equal to its rest mass M_0. It can decay into a pair (or any number) of lighter particles, as long as their rest masses add up to less than M_0. The daughter particles will emerge with velocities, and kinetic energies, *such that* the total final-state energy (m1+ke1 + m2+ke2 + m3+ke3 etc.) adds up to M_0, the total initial state energy. If you want to write that in terms of m' = gamma(v) m, then you would write that the final state particles have velocities v_i such that the relativistic mass increase gamma(v_i) yields (m1' + m2' + m3' ...) = M_0.

If you do the whole thing "for a moving particle", i.e. if the initial state has kinetic energy KE_0, you just get M_0 + KE_0 = m1+ke1 + m2+ke2 + m3+ke3 etc., and nature will choose the ke_i such that the equation is true and energy is conserved. If you want to say "the mass increases", then you write M_0' = (m1' + m2' + m3' ...), where each m_i' is a function of v_i, the v_i are chosen such that the equation is true and energy is conserved.

Regarding your search for how SR describes "this mass decrease": first, sorry, it took me a minute to understand your capitals/lowercase notation. While it is true that, in an energy sense, the final-state kinetic energy is determined by KE=JOE-joe. However, that tells you nothing about velocities; the final-state kinetic energy is divided up between joe and WRENCH. The velocities of these states are different depending on their masses; for example, for a fixed KE, if WRENCH is quite small, you'll get joe recoiling with a low velocity (v_wrench > v_joe, and KE_wrench > KE_joe). If WRENCH is the same mass as joe, they'll have equal recoil velocities (v_wrench=v_joe and KE_wrench = KE_joe). If WRENCH is very heavy, it barely recoils, and JOE gets a higher velocity and and most of the kinetic energy. You absolutely cannot understand the problem by reducing it to JOE -> joe + KE; you'd have no idea what joe's final state is, because you're ignoring the share of KE that goes to the wrench (a share determined by momentum conservation and the wrench's mass). If you do know, please tell us what value of "beta" goes into your AD equation? Is it joe's velocity, or the wrench's? Where does your AD solution acknowledge the difference between a heavy wrench and a light one?

SR, of course, looks at the total mass-energy lost (dM = JOEWRENCH - joe - WRENCH in your notation), turns this into kinetic energy, and assigns final-state velocities to both daughters (v_j for joe, and v_w for WRENCH) in such a way that energy and momentum are conserved. There are always two equations, one for energy conservation and one for momentum. If you like, you can write the energy equation by demanding that the total 'relativistic mass' is constant, but it's easier in modern notation. -bm

BM, you say:

While it is true that, in an energy sense, the final-state kinetic energy is determined by KE=JOE-joe.

Thank you for finally admitting this. Unfortunately your conclusion is wrong about velocity. We know the velocity because we know the KE, because we know the final and initial masses. You then go onto a discussion about recoil, but there is no recoil! JOE spontaneously decays into joe. joe now has a velocity, the energy of which comes from a small portion of JOE's mass. In your treatment of the scenario, JOE not only decays, but he pushes against WRENCH!. If joe obtains his velocity ONLY via mass decay of a portion JOE into KE, then where did the energy come from to recoil WRENCH?

The energy to recoil WRENCH is the *other portion*. -bm

Don't lie now. Everything is shown here on this wikipedia talk page for the whole world to see for the next 100 years or however long wikipedia exists. Anyone with eyeballs and a brain can see what you've written. You said that the KE is determined by KE=JOE-joe. We have composite JOEWRENCH. The mass from portion JOE decays into energy providing velocity (your words, KE=JOE-joe). The only *other portion* is WRENCH! WRENCH doesn't give up any of its mass! There is no energy available for recoil.--Tbainbri 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Tbainbri, please keep track of everything going on here. In the final state, both joe and WRENCH are moving. In addition to their rest masses, they both have kinetic energy. Let's add up the energies, using energy conservation. Initial total energy = final total energy. We'll keep track of all of the rest mass and all of the kinetic energy.

M J O E W R E N C H c 2 = M J O E c 2 + M W R E N C H c 2 = M j o e c 2 + K E j o e + M W R E N C H c 2 + K E W R E N C H

. Notice the *two* kinetic energy terms? They are there because both joe and WRENCH are moving in the end (or do you deny that?). Let's try to figure out how big those terms are. Canceling out the rest masses, you get

M J O E c 2 = M j o e c 2 + K E j o e + K E W R E N C H .

. Rearranging,

M J O E c 2 - M j o e c 2 = K E j o e + K E W R E N C H

. JOE's mass loss gives kinetic energy to *two objects*. That means that joe doesn't get all of it. joe gets some, the wrench gets some. You've been going through this whole thing as if

K E W R E N C H

is zero---is that some sort of bizarre AD assumption? Or did you just forget about how, when you throw things, they usually start moving?

And I might predict that you're going to say, well, joe doesn't moving "because he has relativity" and you can just view the whole process from his perspective. Let me preempt this by noting that joe and JOE occupied different inertial reference frames, and one could accurately analyze the situation from either one (if you want to be in the frame where joe ends up at rest, you'd perceive JOEWRENCH to have some initial velocity/momentum/ke) but an observer that starts off seeing JOE at rest, and ends up seeing joe at rest, is not in an inertial frame. (sigh. will this provoke yet another attack on frames? or will Tbainbri try to put in relativistic masses instead the rest masses? why do I bother?) -bm

You know that this doesn't happen; WRENCH is unaffected by JOE. Of course there will be a relative velocity between WRENCH and joe, but speaking with respect to KE, it is joe's velocity because the situation is exactly the same if WRENCH simply didn't exist, but it is NOT the same if JOE didn't exist.

Wrong wrong wrong. If WRENCH doesn't exist, then the decay JOE->joe+KE is explicitly forbidden by momentum conservation. So let's stick to the event where WRENCH does exist, eh? I'm amazed to hear you say, with a straight face, that the final velocities don't depend on the masses, and that joe doesn't have any final velocity. It's as true in Newtonian mechanics as it is in relativity.

You continue to admit that momentum is not conserved in decay in special relativity and I'm not sure how you use that as a case against AD, but you are absolutely correct. This is because SR's crackpot momentum equation contains SR's crackpot relativistic mass which makes no sense for a particle that is supposed to be losing mass, not gaining it. The self-proclaimed "physics establishment" claims that THIS mass increase isn't real or it is only a perceived mass increase. If it's not real, then why is it lurking in your KE and momentum equations? The situation isn't nullified just because your equations can't describe it! That is not science and you should be ashamed for even suggesting it. We have this beautiful mass-energy relationship discovered by Einstein, yet you have no idea how to use it. You don't even understand what decay is! You just need a new set of equations (AD) and everything works just fine. The fact is that SR can't handle even the most basic example of decay (JOE = joe + KE). If all the energy in your example of decay comes from JOE (as you said) then what has WRENCH's mass got to do with anything? WRENCH can be one 1g or 500kg, but it doesn't affect JOE's momentum at all.--Tbainbri 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, if JOE didn't exist, there wouldn't be any event to describe! Does this answer your beta question? To answer your second question, my AD solution doesn't acknowledge a difference between a heavy wrench and light one, because in your glycolysis example there is no such difference! If JOE eats a chocolate bar full of glucose while holding WRENCH, will the WRENCH get more massive? No, of course not; that's silly. It's just as silly as saying the converse: that WRENCH loses mass when JOE converts some sugar into energy.

Perhaps you're deliberately being dense. I wasn't saying WRENCH gets heavier in the course of the "decay", nor by eating glucose; I meant, we're going to do the experiment several times with different wrenches: say a 5-gram, a 50-kg, and a 5000-kg. These three situations will give manifestly different results. You've said that the results don't depend on the wrench's mass at all---am I right? This means that momentum is not conserved in your solutions.

Of course momentum isn't conserved in decay with SR. Neither is KE. And you admit both, but still refuse to accept AD! This is truly amazing.--Tbainbri 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You then go on to talk about KE conservation, but it is easy to show that it is not conserved in SR although it is in AD. In AD, if FATJOE has 200 units of mass and decays into a slimmer JOE, at 150 units of mass, we get 50 units of KE; then if JOE at 150 units of mass decays into joe at 125 units of mass, we get 25 more units of KE. If we use the SR KE equation to calculate each successive velocity, we arrive at a final velocity which is different when calculated with the SR sum velocity equation!

Sorry, you've just constructed a situation which violates momentum conservation. As I have said, a decay of the form FATJOE -> JOE + KE is explicitly forbidden in SR. In order for JOE to have kinetic energy, he has to have a velocity and a momentum. He can't just pick up this momentum out of nowhere; he has to kick-off of something, imparting that object with momentum in the opposite direction. Are you ignoring this on purpose, or because you didn't think of it, or because you think *momentum* conservation is also wrong? -bm

So, let me get this straight: We have a thought experiment. In this experiment, if we use one set of equations, it fails to conserve energy and momentum (SR) and if we use the other set of equations, it does conserve energy and momentum (AD). What is BM's conclusion? Is it that we must use the equations which conserve energy and momentum to describe the phenomenon? NO, he simply concludes: THE EXPERIMENT IS INVALID. I hope to whatever deity might exist, that you are not in a position to be teaching science to students! Then again, a lot of grant money is awarded every year to people that use this kind reasoning, so I guess it must be profitable. Who cares if it's not actually science, huh?

So, do I think momentum conservation is wrong? NO. I think SR doesn't conserve momentum when applied to a simple case of decay. Is this really your line of reasoning when you do an experiment?--Tbainbri 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If we use AD's sum velocity equation and KE equation, we get exactly the the same final velocity. AD just makes sense. The problem is that in SR, you are always doing kinematics and never autodynamics (decay). In the universe, the general case is decay and the special case is application of external energy to a system. SR was (although it was apparently not conceptually understood as such at the time) mathematically derived to describe the later (though not conceptually), and that's why it fails at describing the former (and hence the invention of the neutrino to make up for the difference in energy predicted versus energy observed). It is also why you get that crazy relativistic mass equation in SR. I say crazy, because it is conceptually incongruent with SR and therefore treated as "not real", yet it is still hidden away in the SR momentum and SR KE equations. AD (as I have shown above) can be easily reduced to SR (with respect to the equations, not SR's conceptual framework) for the special case of external energy being applied to a system if we just set

M = m c 2 + K E

. In that case, the mass increase IS REAL! It is no longer crazy, because we know where it comes from; it comes from the external energy (like the kylstron EM field, for example)! Of course, in AD that mass increase is temporary because the added mass is then decayed to give rise to the velocity. This incongruence between SR concept and SR equation only leads to stranger and stranger concepts to hide it's inability to describe the universe: space-time warping, infinitely dense objects, time dilation, neutrinos, etc..(yeah, some of these are GR concepts, but GR is based on SR..) AD explains everything with common sense. Newton would be proud.--Tbainbri 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

(At this point you might be thinking, "gosh, it seems so simple; it can't be right! Someone else would have seen this before!" Yes, that is the frustration of the ADist. I have no idea why some people can see it and some can't.)--Tbainbri 18:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how "masses or forces" are not relevant in this example. But in any case, I am not asking you to explain AD in a satisfactory way. I am just trying to find a formulation of (8) or any of the other points which you list, which is effectively neutral. For example, if a movement the additivists claimed that 1+1=31, then we would say in an NPOV manner: Additivists make the controversial claim that 1+1=31, which contradicts all the established rules of arithmetic. Additivists insist that the rules of arithmetic are meaningless and don't apply to what they call "transcendental discovery states." Additivism is considered a marginal movement and has no scientific basis. This is of course more extreme than what you are proposing, but I use it as an illustration of how the NPOV policy is normally interpreted.

The fact that AD considers a space time manifold description of phenomenon as "magical" is pretty bizarre. This means in particular, that you can't write down any equation of motion in which states are decribed by some real-valued coordinates? Did you really mean this? --CSTAR 18:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, AD uses standard Euclidean geometry.--Tbainbri 22:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't intend the example of the "Additivists" above to be intended as derogatory; howver, it is clear AD is very much on the margins of science (particularly with claims about no manifold of configurations); I t wanted to impress upon you that NPOV does not mean any group can get willy-nilly their position stated on WP as just one more idea in the big happy family of ideas.--CSTAR 22:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As usual, I think your Additivist NPOV analogy is fine. Using words like "controversial" or phrases like "contradicts everything that is accepted as known to be true about the universe" is fine with me. What, IMO, is POV, are phrases like "p is correct, q is not correct" or "p-ists say this, but they are wrong because q is accepted". Words like "correct" and "incorrect" can't be NPOV unless they are so intuitively obvious that none of us would waste several hours of our time and pages upon pages of arguments on a discussion page.--Tbainbri 22:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to sum up my impressions of the above discussion. The original criticism of the AD equations is that they disagree with kinematics, in a trivial way. Cars on the highway obviously do not measure velocities according to the AD equations. The rebuttal was that AD only applies to decays. I proposed the Joebaseball analogy to suggest that, no, ordinary kinematics and *decay* kinematics are not separable. In SR, you've got an equation which gives you a particle's energy as a function of velocity (E = gamma(v) mc^2) and another one which gives you momentum as a function of velocity (p=v/c gamma(v) mc). Those two equations describe any system of masses, decaying, scattering, fusing, etc. The Lorentz tranformation shows you how to describe the same system from any moving vantage point.

Yikes. When I have to resort to quoting myself, it really means that you're not paying attention.

Here we have the definition of kinematics: The branch of mechanics dealing with the description of the motion of bodies or fluids without reference to the forces producing the motion.

Decay is not kinematics. We can refer exactly to where the energy comes from in decay: it comes from a body's rest mass!--Tbainbri 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

How, we asked, does AD *separate* decays from kinematics? We haven't had a clear answer. First it was "mass turns into kinetic energy". Fine, but that occurs also in the Joebaseball system. Then it was "But it's only Joe's mass which turns into energy, the baseball has nothing to do with it" and therefore (for unclear reasons) it was not a decay. But without including the baseball's mass and recoil velocity, you a) cannot conserve momentum and b) cannot have any idea how to calculate Joe's velocity. It's not entirely clear to me, but I think Tbainbri suggests that Joe does not recoil at all when throwing a wrench or a baseball. (Is that what you think *happens*, or is that what you think *SR predicts*?) Next, TBainbri suggests that SR requires the wrench/baseball itself to change mass.

Ok, here we go. Here comes the typical response: "we tried to discuss an example with AD supporters, but they just don't answer our questions." This is complete RUBBISH and now anyone in the world, with access to the internet can come to this discussion page for years to come and see that it is a lie. First you say: We haven't had a clear answer. But then you immediately contradict yourself and say: First it was "mass turns into kinetic energy". Voila! There is your answer! Should I repeat it to you again so that you can't say that I didn't answer when you asked me? Mass decays into KE. There. Let's move on to the next lie: therefore (for unclear reasons) it was not a decay. I never said it wasn't decay, I only said that you're not treating it as a decay because in SR you have joe decaying mass into energy and simultaneously pushing BASEBALL or WRENCH or whatever that particular object was in that example. It's decay, so JOE isn't pushing anything. But, then, you don't seem to know what decay is, anyway.--Tbainbri 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

How can it not be clear to you, when I've already said, above, that there is no recoil? There is one, and only one velocity because in the system, only joe and BASEBALL exist! Unless you want to redefine the velocity between joe and BASEBALL to recoil. Be my guest; you can call it whatever you want, but it's still "v".

Again, I've already told you how to calculate joe's velocity! It's not difficult at all! If we know the rest mass and the motion mass, then we know the velocity:

$m=m_0\sqrt{1-\beta}$

Solve for v. Why do you continue to say things that are not true. I really hope that it's just because this talk page is getting messy and not that you are being dishonest.--Tbainbri 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is getting rather far from the original question: how does AD separate decays from kinematics? Clearly, it's something other than the black-box treatment, in which you start with mass A at rest, end up with masses B and C in motion, and the masses obey (A > B+C). Anything of that form---or, indeed, any form---is handled by the same SR equations. In AD this is not the case; whether the AD equations apply or not depends somehow on the detailed substructure of A. In the end, it looks like the difference is: "If you can test it against day-to-day experience, and AD fails, it must be kinematics. Otherwise, it's a decay." I don't think there's any merit to keeping the equations on WP if the AD supporters can't even tell us when they apply.

See above for the decay/kinematics question (but if you understood what decay is, it would be obvious).

AD fails for no example. Mass-decay and energy absorption are fundamental processes in the universe. Ultimately, all relative motion results from this.

If you start with one mass (A) and end with two masses in motion (b and c), then you have 2 decays and AD handles this just fine.

A = BC

B -> b + KE_b

C -> c + KE_c

A = B + C = b + KE_b + c + KE_c

It's as simple as that. Note that we really do have two velocities this time because there are two decays.--Tbainbri 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Another attempt

In order to try to resolve this dispute, I have decided it is best not to try to understand any of this (now WMC, please stop chuckling).. what else can I do with a theory which is explained 50 years ago in a newspaper interview?

"Autodynamicists insist that the AD equations apply only to bodies which are undergoing decay and that any application to frame of reference calculations, analogous to a Lorentz or Galilean transformation, is meaningless. Nevertheless, critics still maintain that the AD equations reduce in certain cases to a frame of reference transformation, which fails when applied to bodies moving at relatively low speeds such as airplanes and cars."

Where's Scooter Libby when I need him...--CSTAR 01:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done CSTAR. I'm happy with that. -bm

Sorry, but it doesn't fail at any speed. Shall we calculate examples? It's rather straightforward.--Tbainbri 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It may seem straightforward to you. I'm not convinced that there is any fundamental distinction between the decay/non-decay processes that allows one to apply AD or not.

All energy in the universe is ultimately the result of a conversion of mass. This is called decay. Both SR and AD accept

E = m c 2

, so this shouldn't be a point of contention. Therefore, all relative velocities ultimately come from some process of decay. As long as we have enough information about the system, we don't have to resort to kinematics. We only resort to kinematics when we know what the energy is, but not where it all came from (see definition of kinematics). AD works fine in both cases. In the case where we have the information, we use the general AD equations, but in the case where we don't, we just add the KE into the system without regard to what mass converted its energy and set the rest mass equal to

M = m 0 c 2 + K E

. Really, CSTAR, I'm honest when I say it is straightforward. I don't know why BM doesn't know the difference between decay and kinematics, after I've posted the definition of kinematics twice and he knows the mass-energy equivalence.--Tbainbri 05:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems this is a "he said/she said" situation. Moreover, we're not talking about a vast literature supporting AD or even explaining AD. As I tried to point out, it's not possible to go to a library and pick up Carezani's book. I think my formulation is as close to a NPOV formulation as possible. Removing the sentence "Nevertheless, ..." would make it much POV and very uninformative.

Do you see any other formulation? --CSTAR 03:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this any better?

"Autodynamicists insist that the AD equations apply only to bodies which are undergoing decay and that any application to frame of reference calculations, analogous to a Lorentz or Galilean transformation, is meaningless. Nevertheless, critics still maintain that the AD equations reduce in certain cases to a frame of reference transformation, which fail when applied to bodies moving at relatively low speeds such as airplanes and cars. It is in these cases that autodynamicists claim that the AD equations are improperly applied to non-decay processes"

How about this:

"Autodynamicists insist that any application to frame of reference calculations, analogous to a Lorentz or Galilean transformation, is unnecessary because each observer can make its own measurments relative to its own coordinate system and transmit that information to any other observer. Nevertheless, critics still maintain that the AD equations reduce in certain cases to a frame of reference transformation, which fail when applied to bodies moving at relatively low speeds such as airplanes and cars."

I removed the last bit, because AD applies to all cases of relative motion, since all relative motion ultimately comes from decay. To be honest, I don't even understand what the second sentence is supposed to mean, but it sounds like NPOV anyway.--Tbainbri 05:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

--CSTAR 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned edit relocated:

Tbainbri, if you would like to work through some AD versus SR examples, can we fork that discussion over to your user page? This back-and-forth has gone on long enough, and it's clear that no one is being swayed. The "AD fails" statement is behind a "critics say" disclaimer, anyway. -bm

You're right and that's fine with me. --Tbainbri 05:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence on Autodynamics

More Evidence Of Pico-Graviton Hypothesis

These are tiny moons. Their estimated diameters lie between 40 and 125 miles (64 and 200 kilometers). Charon, for comparison, is about 730 miles (1170 km) wide, while Pluto itself has a diameter of about 1410 miles (2270 km).

The team plans to make follow-up Hubble observations in February to confirm that the newly discovered objects are truly Pluto's moons. Only after confirmation will the International Astronomical Union consider permanent (and catchier) names for S/2005 P1 and S/2005 P2.

The Hubble telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys observed the two new candidate moons on May 15, 2005. "The new satellite candidates are roughly 5,000 times fainter than Pluto, but they really stood out in these Hubble images," said Max Mutchler of the Space Telescope Science Institute and the first team member to identify the satellites.

Three days later, Hubble looked at Pluto again. The two objects were still there and appeared to be moving in orbit around Pluto.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/01nov_moonsofpluto.htm?list8434

The evidence for the Pico-graviton hypothesis seems to be pouring in. It is the only hypothesis can predict that the number of satellites around a planet is also determined by its distance from a star and not just its mass.

Second AD 'Success' Within A Month Moon discovered orbiting tenth planet

The tenth planet in the <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="solar%20system" onmouseover="window.status='solar system'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=; return true;">solar system</a> has a moon at least a tenth of its size. The discovery, made on 10 September ….. officially a planet - for now its only official designation is 2003 UB313 ….. nicknamed it Xena after the television warrior princess, is calling the moon Gabrielle, after the princess's companion.

The moon is ten times closer to its planet that our Moon is to Earth, and the pair are 97 times further from the Sun than the Earth is. Viewed from Earth, they are separated by only half an arc-second.

The best estimate of Xena's size so far is about 2700 kilometres in diameter, about one-fifth the size of the Earth. Gabrielle, which is about a tenth the size of Xena, is about one-eighth the size of our Moon.

An intriguing consequence of the latest discovery is that three of the four largest objects beyond Neptune are now known to have moons, including Pluto and 2003 EL61.

Brown suggests "some very common mechanism must be responsible". He proposes they were created by collisions between icy trans-Neptunian objects, similar to the collision between the nearly complete Earth and a Mars-sized object that created our Moon.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8086

This is no mystery to the Autodynamicist. The Pico-Graviton hypothesis says that there is a relationship not just between the mass of a planet and its number of moons but also between how close a plant is to the Sun. When a moon is in alignment with its planet and the Sun, the net difference in pico-graviton radiation pressure pushes the moon a little closer to the Sun. This is born out by the inner planets. Mars is half the size of the Earth and Venus and yet has two satellites where as the Earth, which closer to the Sun only has one satellite and Venus, which is even closer has none. Still closer to the Sun is Mercury which has none and yet Pluto, on the <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="far%20side" onmouseover="window.status='far side'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=; return true;">far side</a> of the Solar syatem, is smaller than Mercury and has at least one satellite. Now we find that tiny Xena also has a satellite.

http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/ADUK-News.htm#NEWSHeader kevin J waldroup novemver-5 9:45PM

How Einstein's dead wrong, relatively speaking Verity Edwards November 07, 2005 ONE is possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the other is a maverick physicist from Adelaide.

But Reg Cahill says he can prove Albert Einstein and his hundred-year-old theories of relativity are wrong.

The problem for Professor Cahill is that many of his contemporaries line up with Einstein.

"I've been treated with utter contempt and hostility," he told The Australian. "This is pretty shocking stuff -- but it's what you'd expect."

In 2002, Professor Cahill started to question what he thought were anomalies in Einstein's theory that time and space are relative. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17161169%255E30417,00.html kevin J waldroup novemver,7.2005 2:04AM go to sleep now

New look at microwave background may cast doubts on big bang theory

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17752

Light that travels faster than the speed of light From Science Blog

http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html?q=node/8725

Has ESA's XMM-Newton cast doubt over dark energy?

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMRHL274OD_Expanding_0.html

An invisible hand? Aug 19th 2004 From The Economist print edition An unexplained effect during solar eclipses casts doubt on General Relativity

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3104321

A review of conventional explanations of anomalous observations during solar eclipses

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf

kevin J waldroup novemver,7.2005 2:04AM

Non-evidence on Autodynamics

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: [3] William M. Connolley 17:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)]. However, searches in several university libraries turned up nothing. For example, do a search in the UCLA library [4]; you will see nothing turns up. Aside from the complete nonsense on the SAA webpages, the only document that is readily available online is a photograph of a ragged clip from a (now defunct) Buenos Aires newspaper [5]. It's in Spanish (OK I'm a native Spanish speaker)

I propose using the information in the clipping as the basis for the WP article; In particular, the side-by-side comparison of the AD equations and the SR equations, plus a few quotes from Carezani himself. --CSTAR 16:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

US$333. Yikes. I'll stick to the yellowing ragged clip.--CSTAR 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the SAA would be willing to donate a couple of books to you for the sake of a wikipedia article. The side-by-side comparison is a good idea.--Tbainbri 05:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Relativistic?

In what sense is AD relativistic? According to Tbainbri (and confirmed by the blurb on Cazerani in the Buenos AIres newspaper from 1954) there are no frames of reference in AD. So where is the "relativity" (even Galilean relativity)? --CSTAR 22:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The relativity is between the observer and the phenomenon.--Tbainbri 05:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This would seem to suggest that any objective theory of nature is relativistic.

The introductory sentence as it stands is very misleading. It should read AD is a replacement for SR and GR, which supporters claim is also relativistic. Later on the article should say what relativity in the AD sense means.--CSTAR 15:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Are we seriously disputing what the term relativity means, now?--Tbainbri 16:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"We" indeed are disputing AD's usage of relativity

Clearly, yes "we" are seriously disputing AD's usage of the term relativity. I believe my formulation is completely NPOV. Relativity is understood to mean two things

A correspondence between frames of reference and observables;
Transformations that map observables associated to one frame of reference to another.

This usage is quite standard and for AD to pretend otherwise is misleading. Note that I am not saying you cannot call it what you want. However, I am saying that the reader should be alterted to AD's unusual definition and that AD appears to be using the term in a non-standard way. For me that point is not negotiable. If you like, you can propose an RfC. In fact I suggest you do, because it would set precedent that could clarify frequent points in other articles in which non-standard usage of terms is at play.--CSTAR 17:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What's an RfC?

Fine. AD uses the term in a "non-standard" way.--Tbainbri 23:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re RfC: Requests for comment.

May I suggest you do the following:

You revert back to your latest version.
Replace (6) in that with one of the NPOV versions we discussed
Restore the other contested statments to salsb's version, which we will discuss in turn
The introductory statement on relativity should be modified to make it clear that AD means something non-standard (you don't have to use the phrase "non-standard"; just make it clear it's dfifferent).

Here is the LaTeX source for the Carezani equations as per the 1954 Buenos Aires newspaper clipping. This should replace the "additive formula" section.

<div style="float:left; width:320px; border:1px; border-style:solid; padding:2px; margin-right:10px; text-align:center"> <math> \begin{matrix} E & = & m_0 c^2 \\ m & = & \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \\ E_k & = &m_0 c^2 \bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} -1 \bigg) \\ p & = & \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} v \\ e_0 & = & \mathrm{constant} \\ U e_0 & = & m_0 c^2 \bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} -1 \bigg) \end{matrix} </math> <br> Einstein's equations </div> <div style="float:left; width:320px; border:1px; border-style:solid; padding:2px; margin-right:10px; text-align:center"> <math> \begin{matrix} E & = & m_0 c^2 \\ m & = & m_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \\ E_k & = & m_0 c^2 \bigg(1 - {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \bigg) \\ p & = & {m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \ v \\ e & = & e_0 \big(1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}\big) \\ U e_0 & = & m_0 c^2 \big(1 - {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\big) \end{matrix} </math> <br> Carezani's equations </div>

--CSTAR 01:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Would it be acceptable to everyone here if I put an infobox in the main article giving a brief summary of what Autodynamics is? Right now, the article is very long, and a casual reader probably won't wade through it. The infobox would look something like the following:

Disputed science: Autodynamics
Disciplines:	particle physics
Core tenets:
The Lorentz transformation equations used in mainstream science are formulated incorrectly, causing special relativity and general relativity equations to be invalid.
Year proposed:	ca. 1945
Original proponents:	Ricardo Carezani
Current proponents:	David de Hilster

--Christopher Thomas 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with it. (The infobox is acceptable to me that is).--CSTAR 18:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

it Ok kevin J waldroup novemver,12,2005 4:34PM

The "claim" isn't entirely accurate. One can easily derive the SR equations starting from the autodynamic equations for the special case of a body receiving external energy (therefore the equations are not necessarily invalid, if they are applied to the appropriate phenomena). As for GR, we would say that AD provides a mechanical model for gravity, which GR does not. Also, GR does not predict some phenomena as accurately as AD, such as perihelion advance, precession of binary stars, etc. The sentence you use implies that GR fails as a result of the Lorentz transformation equations being formulated incorrectly. That's not really the claim made by AD. Anyway, I'm not opposed to having an infobox, as long as it is accurate to the claims.--Tbainbri 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/t/Talk%7EAutodynamics_Archive_2_076c.html"

Category: Talk archives

Talk:Autodynamics/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Archives

Agreement with facts re small velocities

Example Calculation Replaced

Something needs to be changed

This is getting into "original research"

NPOV section

Opinion?

NPOV Dispute

Make a list

Discussion of (8)

Another attempt

Evidence on Autodynamics

Non-evidence on Autodynamics

Relativistic?

"We" indeed are disputing AD's usage of relativity

Infobox

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search