Contact has been made, I'm now a fully signed up member of the Autodynamics Yahoo group. Fear not I haven't been assimilated, or turned to the dark side but it does provide an opportunity to ask some interesting questions. You can see my posts starting here, as you can see I haven't been very original with my screen name. As they already knew who I was, from this very blog, there didn't seem much point in trying to hide my identity. Should I turn up murdered, by a hail of electro-muons (WTF are they supposed to be anyway?), you'll know two things, that they were right after all and that what you don't believe in can still hurt you.
I have only had a few posts so far but have managed to discern certain features already. So far most of the people posting seem very keen to help, in sort of the creepy way you get with religious fanatics, you know what I mean, they offer you loads of free tea and biscuits, you sit there quietly nibbling on a rich tea but all the while you know they're eyeing up your soul, figuring out what it must be worth in the afterlife. Some of the responses are simply mistaken, some confused and some to put it mildly simply bat-shit mad, as in naked man running down the street claiming he can't get the spiders off mad, for example this one.
I have already learned several interesting "facts" about AD, like the fact that in AD E=mc^2 is believed to be true but c can change. So it applies differently to different objects, for electrons/protons c is the speed of light, but if they need to postulate (that's a fancy word for make up) a new particle that can travel faster than light, say the pico-graviton then c can actually be anything, like 27, 100 or the average IQ of and ADherent (50) divided by the number of times electro-muons detected in actual experiments (0) = infinity times the speed of light (Apologies just couldn't resist). Yes I know that's mental, but there you have it. To date I have had ignored the points where AD just doesn't work with what we know about the Universe, things like the existence of neutrinos, in favour of looking for inconsistencies in the theory itself, but I have learned that it isn't so much a theory as a bunch of ad hoc bolt ons, so if you disprove one they just stick another one on, like the non constancy of c as a speed limit. In future I think I may well bring in the selective way they apply their theory, any experiments they can match are good, any they cannot must be wrong etc.
So far its been fun, its forcing me to understand real Physics better, which is good (and useful in my line of work), but I think its also quite interesting to see the dynamics (no pun intended) of the group and how they respond to queries, so far mostly through constant exhortations to buy the book. Which of course I have no intention of doing.