Wednesday, April 04, 2007

They're Back - 6 - The One In Which DdH Links To More Obvious Errors In AD

Over at ADherent central a positive flurry of messages have been bouncing around, a mini thread has recently developed about the speed of electrons in electronics and related to that Maxwell's equations. For those not au fait with Physics, Maxwell's equations (click here for the wikipedia explanation) are a set of equations that describe the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields and currents. They are essential to our understanding of the behaviour of any electronic systems, or any electromagnetic (such as light) phenomena.

Dave de Hilster was asked in a post if AD could derive Maxwell's equations, the obvious answer is no, Maxwell's equations are clearly relativistic equations, it was problems understanding them that led Lorentz to come up with his transforms that Einstein subsequently used to postulate relativity in the first place. Dave however chose to link to this page on the Autodynamics site. Why is this interesting? Well because of two sets of equations and the legend at the bottom of the page which states:
These two equations (the SR and AD forms of a particular Maxwell equation) are conceptually equal with the exception that in the SR equation, the coefficient Z divides the equation and in AD, the coefficient multiplies the equation!
The italics added by me by way of explanation. What he is stating is crazy. He is saying that in one equation (the SR one) the terms are divided by the factor Z and in the other (the AD one) they are multiplied by it. He adds the explanation mark as an attempt to make you think this is great news, that the two equations are actually equivalent, which of course they cannot be for any value of Z other than 1 (Erratum: it originally said "or 0" as well here, but that's rubbish, the product of writing posts in the dead of night. Thanks Marc.). What this actually boils down to is that AD cannot describe the Maxwell's equations as we know and use them, so AD is entirely incapable of describing any electromagnetic phenomena. Chalk up another great success for AD!


Marc André Bélanger said...

"for any value of Z other than 1 or 0" wouldn't the result of the equations be totally different if Z=0 (infinity for SR and 0 AD)? (okay, I admit, I'm nitpicking ;-)

Mark Norris said...

Good point, I should check posts I make late at night more thoroughly.

Post fixed with an erratum.

Marc André Bélanger said...

From the AD Maxwell page: "From the moment AD discards two frames in relative motion, the concept of "invariance" becomes meaningless."
It seems to me that many thing become meaningless or irrelevant once you discards two frames. Half the objections to AD are brushed off with that.

I don't know much about the inner workings of AD, but it seems that they have constructed a coherent structure, starting from Carezani's work; and once you accept the starting axioms, everything kind of makes sense (within the AD framework), and so it becomes difficult to accept that the starting axioms are false (we see the same thing in many young sciences).

Mark Norris said...

Indeed, AD is more comprehensive than most crank theories, its just it is entirely based on a false premise. Although there are several tack-ons to the theory, an explanation for gravity being one, it has nothing to do with AD itself, it was only added because relativity can explain gravity but AD cannot. The fact that it has been shown not to work for over a century doesn't phase them.

It doesn't even matter to the ADiots that every single experiment ever performed disproves it. They think its conceptually simpler than SR so must be right. So the reason experiments keep proving them wrong, even simple ones to do with the motion of everyday objects, is just evidence of some vast conspiracy to them. Its very sad.