Scientific Debate?

So there has been plenty of action on the AD discussion board of late. So the background is that I had posted a point that AD couldn't possibly predict the motion of charged particles at velocities near the speed of light, the kind of thing done every day in particle accelerators, now the choice of magnetic field and accelerating electric field used is well known, even if you didn't have SR you could work it out by trial and error. My point was that as we know SR matches the observations perfectly then reasonably AD should too, I also enquired about the fact that with the neutrino gone all of particle physics breaks down, as do all of the conservation laws of particle physics, here is my post:

Thanks Will that was my next question as well. :)

As Will has pointed out the existence of the neutrino is not proven by one single experiment or one single interaction. The existence of the neutrino is an unavoidable consequence of the standard model of particle physics, it doesn't just carry off energy in the reactions that you deride, but also spin and lepton number, all of which must be conserved during reactions. Even if there hadn't been a problem with reconciling energy and momentum in reactions it still would have been postulated to account for the apparent non conservation of these quantities.

So how does AD deal with the requirement to conserve quantities such as these in reactions without the existence of the neutrino?

DdH replied with this:

Take a look at Nucleus-Nucleus Collision at:

http://www.autodynamics.org/main/index.php
?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_p\
age&PAGE_id=20&MMN_position=27:17

There you will find an explanation of particle collisions without the neutrino using AD while still conserving energy and momentum.

A question to your statement which I have heard for many years now:

Where does the idea that "spin and lepton number must be conserved during reactions" come from?

First, you have to agree and prove that all of those leptons and properties of leptons truly exist before you can conserve them. If the neutrino doesn't exist, then either the leptons count is wrong, the properties of leptons are wrong, or the equations themselves are wrong. The AD answer is the equation is wrong and the lepton count is therefore wrong.

Since particle accelerators are calibrated using SR, they are using the wrong equations and force the creation of leptons. Use AD, the neutrino is not needed and all particle interactions are explainable without the neutrino.

Please read the above article.

-David

The link of course does not answer my question. I then replied with this:

I think we have got onto two different topics here.

First the cyclotron, or particle accelerator issue. I'm assuming you agree that we do know how high the magnetic field and electric field has to be to keep electrons confined, these values have to change as the electron increases in velocity (and the theoretical values take into account the SR mass increase). These numbers can be gotten experimentally by trial and error if needs be. So what I think your saying is that for SR to be wrong but still precisely predict exactly what is observed there needs to be some other processes going on that exactly balances the "error" in SR to make it match the observed values of magnetic field and electric field. Though of course in this picture the exact opposite must be true for AD, it cannot predict the values, as the fixed m/e ratio shows, therefore there must be some unobserved phenomena going on which included would make AD match the observations. Its getting awfully contrived by this point isn't it?

The second issue I believe is similar, you are saying that not only is SR/GR wrong but so is particle physics/QM, but for some reason these theories when combined manage to reproduce the observations to the most mind shattering levels of accuracy. You are saying that lepton number is not a real conserved quantity or is not understood, but again because SR predicts exactly the right numbers, it must be that the choice of magnetic and electric fields are are producing some new particle or phenomena that makes SR exactly reproduce the observations.

You must really not be keen on the money being spent on CERN right? Billions and billions being spent and as far as you're concerned the machine itself is masking the true process. Do you have an experiment that could show the difference?

You can see why this is to put it mildly just a little hard to swallow. Physics is one big discipline, it really is impossible to change one area without altering others, as we see here.

Thanks

To which DdH had this to say:

Dear Mark:

I do have to give you an award for showing your true colors:

"most mind shattering levels of accuracy"

Could you quantify that scientifically? To me, that statement gives you away as an obvious dragon slayer here in our egroup. I don't even believe ANY experiment can say that and never will be able to say that. Things can look pretty darn good but "mind shattering"?, that is for people like my brother who is a writer of fiction. Only emotion and love or hate can generate such a statement as your's above, not scientific thought or discipline. You are in love with Einstein!

Did you read the article and study what is there? It looks like you didn't even click on it. "Reply" is not the link. Try the link this time.

You ask a question, we answer and have a paper on it, and you ignore it completely. What a way to study and learn AD!

We don't need a lesson in what the establishment says about accelerators. Carezani knows it better than the physicists themselves. That is why he wrote the article in reference. That is why we have this egroup. Not to repeat the mantras and mistakes of SR and GR, but to find their problems, correct them, and go on to a great future instead of a brick wall and endless tweaking in dead-ends.

Randall Meyer in his interview on our Science Watchdogs podcast said it best: "You can tweak any theory to do anything you want." SR and GR and the big bang and black holes and the grand daddy of them all neutrinos - they are all theories that literally have been tweaked to death.

This is an AD group to help study AD. Not SR. Please study the article sent and come back with questions. The answers are there.

Before you post and repeat what is repeated a 100,000 times a year in the establishment and universities, come back after you read Carezani's papers on Nucleus-Nucleus collision.

I will reject messages that spout off what we already know: that SR works perfectly. If it did, then Carezani would be a mechanical engineer enjoying his grandkids somewhere in Argentina. Believe me, there are times when that would be simpler.

Are you here to learn or slay the mythical dragon? Do you want to learn AD? If you don't believe in AD and it is that wrong, ignore it! You don't do this in the flat-earth society do you? Why us? Normally rage comes from fear. What is the fear people have of Carezani's work? That it could be correct? We teach a real science attitude of questioning the fundamentals, not tweaks upon tweaks to try and save a dying theory. That is what we teach.

Simple question. Are you here to learn about AD. Please don't answer "yes BUT".

Yes or no please. I will reject anything but a yes or no from you in name of this group and all who want to learn about AD and who actually read and study it. One word. If this is not acceptable to you then you may leave. Then, if you DO want to learn about AD, then come back and show that yo have read the article I gave you to read.

Thanks in advance.

And oh yes, of course we hate the billions spent at Cern and around the world on fruitless, useless things. And the public should know we waste this money so we can spend it on better things for the human race. Yes that is important to me - not wasting money. And believe me, that will be in my movie to help motivate the public to all this.

ONE WORD REPLY PLEASE!

-David

P.S. We're not worried about loosing people on this egroup. We're worried about learning and reading here and gaining critical thinkers who study and read before they hit "reply" in this instant information age.

So not knowing if he wanted me to answer his questions or answer yes/no I sent this in response, we'll just have to see what comes of it.

Would you prefer I quantify "most mind shattering levels of accuracy" or answer yes or no? It will be pretty difficult to do that or answer any of your other questions in just one word, especially if the choice is limited to yes or no. I can't even explain whether I read the link in yes or no.

So I think that will be the end of my membership of the AD community. It appears that AD is guilty of exactly the same faults that it claims exist in the real scientific community, lack of openness, unwillingness to debate etc. You will notice that at no point was my question actually answered, how do you explain that AD can't explain the motion of charged particles near the speed of light. Just like in the 6 years the board has been in existence they have not yet managed to explain what the velocity sum equation means, beyond "think more deeply", "buy the book" and "your thinking along the line of SR".