Anyone ever heard of Autodynamics

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

In my travels through the internet I came across www.autodynamics.org

They claim to have a faster than light theory. I tried to follow the equations of the derivation but it just wasn't clear enough. Their point about the unnessesary use of a second frame in special relativity is interesting though.

Has anyone ever heard of this before.

 

[ahrkron]

IIRC, I had heard about it in some other internet forum. I don't think it has much to it. It starts right off saying that relativity is wrong and the like. The website also has some mentions of the "inability of SR-trained people" to think out of the box.

Also, the praise it quotes about the theory are all from their own group. I definitely would not bet on it.

 

[Jimmy]

They claim that mass decreases as velocity increases. They say, "Mass decreases as it is used to move an object forward"

They also claim that if a charged particle decays, its charge gets smaller. I have no clue what that means.

 

[Adam]

The Autodynamics cosmology in pictures: http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/html/ad_cosmos.html

Sub-atomic Autodynamics: http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/html/ad_atomic.html

Mass can be created from pure energy.

http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/faqs.html#AD2

I know nothing about this. Is there any evidence to suggest that mass can be created from pure energy?

Carezani discovered that Special Relativity (SR) cannot be applied to radiation or "decay" cases.

http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/faqs.html#AD6

Is this true or false? I suspect I know the answer, but please enlighten me.

Currently, there are no known physicist that support Autodynamics.

http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/faqs.html#AD7

Maybe there is a reason for that.

Einstein was not completely wrong though. His most famous equation, E = mc^2, remains true for Autodynamics. The rest of the equations are no longer valid under Carezani's Autodynamic theory.

http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/faqs.html#E1

Einstein was not completely wrong? Gracious of them. Well, to be fair, Einstein was wrong now and then, and admitted it.

And the rest: http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/html/ad_in_one_page.html

 

[Tarupak]

Hello ObsessiveMathsFreak

Their point about the unnessesary use of a second frame in special relativity is interesting though.

Has anyone ever heard of this before. [/B]

This is the starting point in this theory.

If we supress the second frame we get the simplified equations

x' = gamma(vt)

and

t' = gamma(t)

[gamma = 1/(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2]

as if the two frames where in the same point at t = 0.

So when we derive the expresions to obtain the speed, it yields v' = v.

There is no mixing Vx and V as in the SR equations.

Then we can obtain the force expression as follow:

Fx = gamma^-1 (m0 ax), where mo is the rest mass and ax is the acceleration.

They claim that mass decreases as velocity increases. They say, "Mass decreases as it is used to move an object forward"

If we obtain the kinetic energy expresion we have:

Ec = m0 c^2 [1 - gamma^-1]

This means that if there is no external energy, the kinetic energy must be supplied by the particle mass. A decay process.

But, this is only half of the process, when a photon interacts with a particle there's an absortion process and a decay procces. In the absortion process the energy is external to the particle, so we have:

m0 c^2 + Ec

then

Ec = (m0 c^2 + Ec) [1 - gamma^-1]

and simplifying

Ec = m0 c^2 (gamma - 1) the SR expression

So SR energy equation describes an absortion procces where the particle increasses its mass from the photon energy and the AD equation describes a decay process where the particle's mass decreases and the particle increases its speed.

Therefore, we have the mechanism that explains why particles move.

The explanations in the autodynamic's web are a bit short but they have a book that makes it better.

I hope they will put someday all the book information in the web.

Hope be usefull.

 

[KJW13]

XMM Newton: Doubts Dark Matter, Supports Pico-Graviton Absorption
Yet more hard science, this time from XMM Newton, is telling us there is no dark matter. Alain Blanchard of the Laboratoire D'Astrophysique and his team used its data to calculate how the abundance of galaxy clusters change with time. Blanchard says:
"There were fewer galaxy clusters in the past".
Such results indicate that the universe must be a high density environment, in clear contradiction to the 'concordance model' which postulates a Universe that is made up of 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and 5% normal matter. Blanchard said:
"To account for these results you have to have a lot of matter in the universe and that leaves little room for dark energy".
While convention may be perplexed, Autodynamic's Universal Gravitation predicts these findings. There are more galaxy clusters today because pico-gravitons are absorbed by matter and in AD matter begets matter. It is part of the 'EMME' cycle of energy turning to mass and mass turning to energy, the absorption of Pico-Gravitons being an example of the energy to matter process. Of course, this still leaves many questions unasked but the findings are, nevertheless, completely consistent with the Autodynamic thesis (Click Here).
http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMRHL274OD_Expanding_0.html
http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/ADUK-News.htm#NEWSHeader

 

[KJW13]

http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/html/ad_in_one_page.html
Autodynamics

http://www.autodynamics.org/new03/index.shtml
http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/ADUK-News.htm