Sunday, January 21, 2007

More Autodynamics

So I have received another comment from what I assume is an adherent to AD (see previous post), they point out that calling them ADiots is rude, which is true, and exactly the reason I do it. They and their related websites are allowed to call physicists everything under the sun, from fantasists to fraudsters and post titles like "Relativity's Incestual Child Must be Euthanized", but I have to be polite to them? Bullshit.

They seem to be confusing science with religion, in the sphere of religion all ideas are equal (there's no evidence for any one being more true than another), in science this is not the case. All theories are not equal, some of them have observations that back them up, AD does not, it therefore deserves even less deference than the average theory. All theories are there to be disproven, they are quite happy to jump on perceived problems in mainstream physics yet have very thin skins when it comes to their own pet theories. Another example of the hypocrisy common to those that support "alternative" theories, anything mainstream is fair game, but not their own ideas.

The comment also makes a lot about me not understanding the difference between a kinematics and a dynamics equation, well that's true, I'm happy to admit I don't have a clue what the hell the AD velocity equation means (it definitely must be being used in some non standard way), If there is an ADiot out there that can explain it to me I'd love to here it. As far as I can tell though, no one seems capable of explaining how AD refers to the real world, their own discussion board seems to be pretty good at making this clear.

To explain the final point the comment makes that I have quickly moved onto other problems with AD is simple and obvious, no-one seems capable of explaining my first, I could spend the next six months fussing over velocity addition but the fact is that would get bring pretty fast, and why bother when there are more amusing things to look at?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bear with me on this comment, as it will be the last.
We have invested hours upon hours explaining AD concepts to new students. There is an entire archive of several years of discussion on the Yahoo group freely available for everyone to study as well as two books, a DVD and a website. Despite this, a few lazy people like yourself come along now and then to pass judgment on something they have not properly studied and therefore (even admittedly) not understood. This, in itself, is rather incredible for someone who is supposed to be a scientist (astronomer?).
How can we justify personally spoon-feeding and tutoring every critic out there who doesn't want to bother themselves with the time to study the explanations that are already available, or at least the very fundamental conceptual bases?
You are a stereotypical example of the "AD critic"; nothing new at all. You hear of AD, read a couple of posts by a previous critic, adopt their criticism as your own (never with anything original to say), don't bother trying to understand the meaning of equations, and when it's pointed out where you are going wrong, you are quick to dismiss it as too boring to bother trying to understand it in the first place.
How is it that you can claim AD "can't handle simple dynamics" when you admittedly don't understand the difference between kinematics and dynamics? (Don't astronomers take basic courses in physics these days or at least have access to a dictionary?)
How is it that you can claim AD cannot "reproduce the behaviour of phenomena in the actual Universe" when you admittedly don't know how or when to apply the equations?
You cannot point out a single scientific flaw in AD, so your criticism becomes personal and emotional.
It is very strange that you have such strong personal opinions about something that:
1. You admittedly don't understand.
and
2. You feel is too "boring" to study.
If that is the case, why not ignore AD altogether?

Unless... you are threatened by the possibility that there might actually be something to AD.

Don't worry, Mark Norris, if this is just another crackpot theory, then you have nothing to fear...

IbaDaiRon said...

The courage of the anonymous is always so inspiring, no?

(snort!)

Well, at least they (=David, no doubt) seem to be taking your posts more seriously: I never got any comments...unless you count that snitty email reply which I posted.

By the way, I claim dibs on "ADiots"! :)

chenxin said...

20150713 chenxin
gucci uk
ray ban sunglasses
true religion jeans
louis vuitton pas cher
louis vuitton
ray ban glasses
oakley sunglasses wholesale
burberry sale
oakley sunglasses outlet
gucci borse
true religion outlet
hollister clothing
cheap ray ban sunglasses
air max 90
prada outlet
soccer shoes
pandora jewelry
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
nike air force
pandora outlet
tory burch handbags
louboutin
coach factory outlet
longchamp handbags
ray ban sunglass
air max 95
coach outlet online
coach outlet online
fitflops outlet
rolex watches
chanel bags
burberry outlet online
polo ralph lauren outlet
toms shoes outlet
michael kors outlet
chaussure louboutin
chanel handbags
cheap oakleys
burberry scarf

Lili Wang said...

20150723wanglili
true religion outlet
ray ban wayfarer
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags uk
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
hermes belts
coach outlet stores online
toms.com
coach factory outlet
lebron 11
gucci outlet online
hollister outlet
cheap jerseys wholesale
oakley sunglasses
coach outlet online
michael kors handbags
tory burch outlet online
louis vuitton
lv bags
chanel outlet online
oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton outlet
air max uk
louis vuitton outlet
celine bag
hollister outlet
burberry outlet online
cheap chi straighteners
michael kors outlet