They're Back - 3

So its all kicked off over at the SAA. DdH started with this post:

Well put.

Here is an example of those you speak of. We have found that the ones
who attack AD and it's proponents know very little about basic physics
and almost nothing about AD. Most of them are full of themselves
opinion and are positioning themselves for jobs in the acedemic world
where truth is less and less important than simply finding am a place
to eek out a living in the university system.

http://theobservershunch.blogspot.com/2007/04/theyre-back.html

It is truly amazing how they cannot and do not understand the basics
and like children, shout back that we don't understand the basics.
It's truly sad.

Amazing. And we're in the 21st century. I'm not sure if we can say
physics is though. Physics in my opinion is over 100 years behind and
stopped at and made a u-turn at the turn of the 20th century.

-David

Which elicited a response that chills the blood of anyone that values real education.

As a homeschooler, David, how can I teach my children the real "basics"? Is
there a "basics" textbook that parents can use with confidence for teaching
real physics to their children when they aren't scientists themselves?

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Aderet

I honestly feel terribly sorry for the poor child that is educated by someone that thinks the SAA is a reliable source of scientific knowledge, to be honest if I understand the home schooling done in the states its fairly likely this kid is being told the Earth is 6000 years old or that Evolutionary theory says Humans evolved from monkeys. Sigh.

DdHs response is to be found here, its very long so I won't post it. Its full of the usual rubbish, but some claims do bear reprinting.

It's funny that the high school teacher of advanced physics at the school where I filmed did not teach relativity. He said he didn't teach it because it simply didn't motivate or interest students. To me, that shows that it is a dead end. After 100 years, there is nothing that has come of it.

That's funny a high school teacher doesn't teach relativity, what a surprise, to appreciate relativity fully you have to understand maths at a higher level than is taught in school. I wonder what other scientific theories aren't taught in school? You know I never really was taught quantum mechanics in school, that must be a dead end too. Or nuclear physics, the lessons we had were very cursory, probably nothing to be gained from understanding how atoms work, or how to generate power from fission. Or what about genetics, we learned that there are 4 base pairs and that they can be arranged to form the DNA code, but not really that much else, I guess genetics is a dead end beyond that.

DdHs next post was aimed squarely at me, enjoy, I know I did.

The effort this guy goes through is quite amazing. Too bad he like
most others stop in the middle before they really understand AD and
pretend to slay the dragon.

http://theobservershunch.blogspot.com/search/label/Autodynamics

A lot of stuff! Misguided, but C+ for the effort!

One example of how these people run right over the truth at the speed of light
and skip the most important point:

"It was observed that the energy contained in the observed decay
products (electron and proton) did not add up to the amount of energy
contained in the neutron, so Pauli postulated that an unobserved
particle (the neutrino) must be carrying away some of the energy."

Problem here is, the energy DID add up without the neutrino. It is exactly as
predicted without the neutrino. Pauli
applied the relativistic KE equation to the eletron and that created the extra
energy. Looks like our basher skipped that important part. First mistake is
that you can't apply KE to decay.
Second, there isn't missing energy if you don't apply relativistic
equations to decay. in the first place.

Two mistakes skipped over by future PHD in the UK and then he goes off into more
and more stuff with just as many conceptual errors.

There is case after case of this guy getting things wrong. One thing we have
learned through the years: it is useless to point out their mistakes to them.
They are incapable of learning because they are convinced AD is wrong no matter
what you say. The only time we spend time to explain where these sad-sacks go
wrong is for those who truly are interested in learning about AD and it serves
as an example for others to see where the shallow logic AD bashers use goes
wrong.

Just think if this guy actually shut up and studied AD more, he might just get
it!

;-)

-David

Only a C+?, for all this work?, damn he is tight marker. I thought at least a B. Needless to say its all posturing bullshit. It wouldn't matter how long I studied AD, I couldn't get it because its a pile of contradictory nonsense. I posted a reply to their board but I don't doubt it won't get posted, so here it is in all its unedited glory.

Hi David

Glad to hear you're feeling better. It's nice to see that you have taken the time to read my post at last. I wonder however what your response to the most problematic points I raised are, namely that there is absolutely no way that E can equalmc^3, and that this shows the lack of scholarship involved in your entire theory. People in glass houses should not throw stones especially when you make a mistake no competent high school student would.

The other being that the Autodynamics equations do not form a group and therefore cannot be used as transforms as you so happily do throughout. This I'll be more forgiving with, a slightly competent first year University physicist would probably pick this one up.

I'll ignore the bit about you being unable to reproduce anything sensible without having to fudge results.

As I don't doubt that this message will get blocked I'll ensure it appears on my blog, thanks to your linking to my blog on your message board at least other members of theSAA will get to see it now.

You keep feigning confusion as to the motives of people like myself, well your last few posts adequately show why people like myself take the time to point out your mistakes. To think that someone schooling their child would think that you are a reputable source of scientific information is beyond me. Then I realise I'm fortunate, I work surrounded by people that use relativity every single day in their work, something I'm sure your deluded parent doesn't have the benefit of, so no wonder it seems odd to them. I know its a fact, I see the results of it everyday, the version you peddle is a cartoon version of relativity, in the same way that creationists caricature evolution and bears little relation to the real theory.

I am here because when scientists don't share their knowledge to people, charlatans and cranks like yourselves start peddling nonsense like AD, or intelligent design or the healing power of crystals, to the benefit of no one but themselves.

If AD is really a scientific theory then publish some papers, in a real peer reviewed paper (and don't try to count Physics Essays, peer reviewed means checked for factual accuracy, not spelled checked). If as you claim your maths is right it must be incontrovertible (that's the way maths is), the fact that you have never published anything that has been properly been reviewed shows the vacuity of the theory. I don't doubt you will claim scientific bias here, but the fact is if your maths is right, it can't be argued with, the fact that even I can show where it goes wrong doesn't really bode well.

Thanks

Mark