They're Back - 5

DdH has posted a reply to the email I sent earlier, you can see my original post here. Here is his response in full, my comments which take the form of an open letter to DdH are at the end.

Mark:

I would take your statement of feeling better serious if you showed
that you can take the time to understand AD. But your civility is a
war tactic, not sincerity. Do you think for one minute I believe you
are here to learn about AD? That amazes me more than your
non-willingness to take the time you need to understand what Carezani
is saying. That is expected. But you can't fool anyone by saying you
are glad I'm better because we know you are not. So I will not accept
your false kindness. That is a simple tactic used over and over here for people
who say we don't listen and are not civil and use that as "proof" we are
inconvincible.

You call us ADiots and you care about my health???

Here is just a small part of what you don't understand:

The velocity sum problem as described by AD forces you to understand
that movement is not for free in the universe. Newton gave us
equations for movement but did not say where movement came from.
Einstein says inertial frames exist and they don't and therefore SR is
moot and what he says about movement and acceleration are therefore moot.

Mass increase is not treated as real by particle accelerator
scientists and yet you and others say SR is correct.

Space-time is vacuous as stated by Feynman himself yet we call
Einstein's theory of gravity a theory of gravity. It is not.

You and the establishment make one fatal mistake: you ignore the
crumbling and failings and flailing of theoretical physics and you
don't STUDY DEEPLY Carezani's work and try to find some simple
Hollywood movie ending where you can defeat a superior enemy as Will
Smith did by imagining one bullet in the right place will kill the enemy.

The truth is just the opposite. Many people around the world have
shown E=mc^2 to only work for very specific cases. Two people in the
world how have gotten the raw data for the atomic clock have shown it
wrong. Where is the proof?

One of the sponsors for my film is one of the brave GPS guys to have
the balls to say that relativity is not used in GPS. Where is the proof?

The experimental physicist in my film at SLAC says mass increase is not treated
as real. Where is the proof?

You, scientists, textbooks, and journalist, repeat statements over and
over and over again that "relativity is one of the most tested
theories in science".

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE??? Search the internet. Where are the
practical applications? GPS and particle accelerators are not examples.

You try and fool everyone with the details of something you don't
understand trying to be the Will Smith of your physics fantasy world.
You are dragon slayer 23 in a long line of people who for some reason
or other feel superior by picking on tiny David (not me, but the
biblical one). That makes you Goliath. He loses in the end.

If Einstein is right, why have ALL the physicists we've talked to
declined to talk with us? What are the afraid of? They really just want to keep
status quo. They are intersted in their job security first, truth second.

As for publishing in reviewed magazines, that is a circular argument.
If you understand philosophy 101, you would understand that you can't assume
what you are trying to set out to prove. In order
to get published in peer-reviewed publications, you have to be
accepted by the establishment. To be accepted by the establishment,
you have been accepted in peer-reviewed publications. That is a circular
argument.

In conclusion, we will only answer questions from those who are
interested in learning about AD because trying to show where you are
wrong is a circular problem also: you have to understand AD before
you would "supposedly" be able to "bring it down".

You have shown, like the establishment, to not study AD deeply.

What can I say? You either take the time, or pretend to be the
Hollywood hero in a fantasy world and be reliaged to the masses in
history who swallow whole what is told to them.

-David

First off David, my civility is not feigned or a tactic, Science should not be an arena of personal grudges and arguments, I genuinely do not wish you any harm, I don't know you and have no reason to dislike you, you have always seemed genuinely polite. As I have pointed out before I do not hate you, pity is the best word to describe my feelings towards you. There are many people in Astronomy I disagree with in a professional sense but have no personal animosity with. I would have to admit that I do actively dislike Lucy, she is rude, offensive and attempts to belittle those that disagree with here, she is most definitely an ADiot, I would hazard to guess that any PhD she may have is not in any science, as her attitude would not get her very far.

The velocity sum equation for AD does not force me to accept that motion is not "free", if you are admitting that AD cannot describe the motion of macroscopic objects in a way that we all can observe in our everyday lives, then you are admitting that AD is wrong. Like much of AD the claim that mass decreases as a particle moves is contradictory, the change in the mass clearly depends on the observer, because it depends on the relative velocity between the two, so how is this change any different from the change in mass predicted by relativity, except of course for the different sign of the change?

This of course is related to your misunderstanding of what people tell you about mass increase in special relativity. I'm not sure if you deliberately misunderstand or if you simply are incapable of seeing the subtleties, regardless lets see if we can try one more time. Yes SR says that moving objects appear to increase in mass, now is this increase real? No of course not, because the amount of mass increase depends on the relative motion of the observers, so different people will measure different masses for the same object if they have different relative motions. This is just another manifestation of the different observables appearing different in different reference frames, its exactly the same in AD as I have pointed out except you have got it the wrong way around, you then desperately try to explain it as the energy being used to move the object, if that is the case why do I have to impart energy to move a ball? So in SR while an object may not physically increase in mass it behaves exactly as if it has, so to make things simpler physicists treat it as a mass increase. Despite your claims particle physicists use this every day when calculating parameters for interactions, if you have a "particle physicist" who claims otherwise he is either no such thing or not involved in anything to do with actual experiments. Sorry to disabuse you of this but that just the way it is, even the electrons in a CRT have a measurable different mass to ones at rest.

Einsteins theory of gravity is not a theory of causation it is a phenomenological description, one that happens to work incredibly well in every circumstance it has ever been tested. GR is undoubtedly a excellent description and any full theory of gravity, such as quantum gravity must reproduce the predictions of GR. Your theory of gravity which is actually an ad hoc attachment to AD, which has no real connection to the main theory was disproven on thermodynamic (as well as many other) grounds more than a century ago.

I have absolutely no misconceptions that I can convince you that you are incorrect. I really don't care if I do, as long as people like you are around, there will be people like me explaining what the real science is. So no I will not give up, these pages will be here as long as possible, at the rate they are climbing up the Google searches they will soon be on the first page just below your site, ensuring that everyone gets to have a balanced read.

I am not aware of any evidence that E equals anything other than mc^2, and has already been pointed out, from a dimensional analysis point of view, it must. For you to claim that it can be anything other than that for the energy of motion shows just how ignorant of physics you really are.

I don't know who your GPS guy is, but I do know that GPS and the Galileo system have corrections for relativity built in. I have seen many explanations of what effects are included, here is one. There are plenty of people that seem to claim that GPS doesn't include relativistic effects, always people that would have no connection with the actual programming of the corrections.

I don't doubt physicists would want nothing to do with you, asking them to appear in a documentary that is clearly cranky, with no editorial control over how their words are used. It's a recipe for humiliation. Does it really surprise you that they want nothing to do with your project? Especially when a simple Google search brings up so many examples of you and your behaviour, I'm particularly thinking about your discussion board days. Add that to the fact that it is up to you to prove that your theory is correct not the other way round, and to date you have nothing to back up your claims. Physicists are generally very busy people, they don't have time to spend potentially ruining their credibility with any loon with a camera.

Your comment about peer reviewed shows that you don't know anything about the process. Your hate figure, Einstein, published his first papers without any qualifications other than a standard degree and without a position at an academic institution. You can submit papers to any journal you like, they will be treated fairly by an expert in the relevant field. If your theory has any potential the reviewer will be more than willing to help out, if you think you are being treated unfairly you can ask for another reviewer. You won't get any sympathy from professional scientists with your whining about not getting published, we all have to work through the same problems. We use the scientific method for a reason, because it works, if everyone that had an idea started their own mini cult with websites, documentaries and books we wouldn't progress at all.

Oh and as a response to your post here, I am doing a PhD, there are no majors, hell there aren't even majors in undergraduate degrees in the UK you spend all of your time studying the subject you signed up for, which in my case meant 4 years of Physics. My PhD is research based and I like what I do, so I think I'll stick with it.