153 views

Skip to first unread message

Feb 19, 1998, 3:00:00â€¯AM2/19/98

to

Over the past few days I have been posting to news groups over the theories

opposing Einstein's theories of relativity, as part of my A Level R&A

Project. The main one I have been trying to gather information on is

Autodynamics as this seems to be the most documented. This has provoked

some "Very" different come backs.

Not only have people been posting to the news groups, but I have received

Nemours E-mails (which are very insightful) and there are very strong

opinions both for and against. My problem is that although I have received

MANY more responses in support of Einstein's theories, they all seem to

follow the same format...... "Einstein's theories are accepted, accept this

yourself". The several that I have got from AD supporters are very

passionate, and they tend to go out of there way to give me information on

the subject.

I have tried to Instigate arguments (or discussions) but I keep Receiving

the same belligerent answers and hope that Someone can 'show me' that one or

the other can be proven and if it is "unrealistic" why!

My last word is sorry to Todd, who I have really tried to get to argue with

me as he offered real answers and tried too show me (although I dug my heels

in). Todd, I have been listening, thanx.

Feb 19, 1998, 3:00:00â€¯AM2/19/98

to

... research newsgroup snipped for the moment, relativity group

added with followups set there ...

"Warren Dixon" <xo...@dial.pipex.com> writes:

>

>Over the past few days I have been posting to news groups over the theories

>opposing Einstein's theories of relativity, as part of my A Level R&A

>Project.

I have not seen any posts on that subject in any of the newsgroups

this was sent to: sci.physics, sci.physics.particle, and the moderated

sci.physics.research newsgroup.

>The main one I have been trying to gather information on is

>Autodynamics as this seems to be the most documented.

You don't need to "gather" information on AutoDynamics, it is all

right there on their newsgroup. It would make a good "A levels"

project for you to sort out the history of that work and the way

the theory has narrowed its scope over time. It would make an

even better one if you spotted the two big mistakes they have on

their web site.

>I have tried to Instigate arguments (or discussions) but I keep Receiving

>the same belligerent answers and hope that Someone can 'show me' that one or

>the other can be proven and if it is "unrealistic" why!

Again, I have not seen any examples of that in the newsgroups this

article was initially posted to. That is, no examples of "instigating

arguments" on AutoDynamics or "belligerent answers" to same.

--

James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_

http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address

Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account

Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.

Feb 20, 1998, 3:00:00â€¯AM2/20/98

to

Here is one of two articles I posted to sci.physics.relativity in November

of 1996 about Autodynamics. I have NOT visited their web site since, and

make no claims whether or not the errors and confusions described below

remain true about their web site todsy.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

--- BEGIN INCLUDED ANCIENT ARTICLE ---

Subject: A Physicist's Refutation of Autodynamics

ADMINISTRIVIA

-------------

Notation:

A paragraph indented by a <TAB> indicates an aside or comment not part

of the main text. Such a paragraph beginning "OBJ" or "ANS" indicates

my anticipation of an objection and my answer to it.

Math: A * B indicates multiplication; A / B is division; X ** Y indicates

exponentiation; = is mathematical equality (NOT the FORTRAN meaning);

== means "is identically the same as"; sqrt(X) is the square root of X.

A PHYSICIST'S REFUTATION OF AUTODYNAMICS

----------------------------------------

by Tom Roberts, tjro...@lucent.com

In this article I will give a strong argument on why Autodynamics

is not a viable theory.

All of my sources for Autodynamics come from the Web page

http://www.autodynamics.org, on November 1, 1996. While it

may be "untraditional" to critique a theory from a Website

rather than from papers published in technical journals, in

this case it is my only option (Autodynamics has a very

sparse literature, and I don't have access to the journals

mentioned in the Website).

In this discussion I will not quibble about individual experimental

details or how Autodynamics purports to more properly explain them.

Instead I will discuss the central equations of Autodynamics, and why

they inherently imply unacceptable consequences. Thus, my refutation

rests not in experiments, but upon general theoretical grounds.

I will show that Autodynamics does not conform to some very basic

requirements of any physical theory.

In the Autodynamics section "...FRAMES: Derivation 2"

[http://www.autodynamics.org/Frames/Deriv2New.html], equation 19

gives the Autodynamics "Simplified Lorentz Equations". These are then

used to derive equations relating velocities, forces, and Kinetic Energy

among various coordinate systems. The problem with the entire approach

is that these transformation equations do not form a group (see Appendix

for proof; it is trivial and unenlightening, so I have relegated it to

an Appendix).

Einstein said "Keep things as simple as possible, but no simpler."

The Autodynamics "Simplified Lorentz Equations" went too far, and

in their simplification they lost an essential component of the

meaning. The original Lorentz Equations, of course, do form a group.

If my audience were composed of physicists, I would end right here,

present the Appendix, and be done (though most of the audience would

wonder why I bothered...). As this is sci.physics.relativity and not

the "Physical Review", I will expand upon why it is essential that

coordinate transformations form a group.

OBJ1: But equations 19 are NOT transformation equations. We

never claimed they were.

ANS1: You're right, in a far deeper sense than you probably

realize. They are indeed not transformation equations because

they do not provide a 1-to-1 mapping from one set of coordinates

to another (and also because they do not form a group). But

then why do you differentiate them to find the transformation

of velocities, forces, and KE? The only justification for doing

that is if they are indeed the transformation equations. As far

as I can tell, eqn 19 serves as transformation equations in the

derivation. In "...LIGHT SPEED" it says "To shift from one

observer to another, the velocity transformation equation is used

[...]." This equation is derived from equation 19. (See my

"Opinions" article for more discussion of the steps from eqn 19

to eqn 21.)

OBJ2: Your so-called refutation rests purely on theoretical

grounds. Science rests on EXPERIMENTS. Autodynamics provides

a simpler explanation of several experiments.

ANS2: The theoretical grounds upon which I base my refutation

are the distillation of literally billions of experiments --

you cannot just dismiss them out-of-hand. They are also an

explicit statement of basic modes of human thought and

perception, and seem so fundamental that any theory which does

not adhere to them MUST at least provide a detailed description

of how these ideas need to be modified, and why. Autodynamics

does not do this. See my "Opinions" article for more discussion

of this important point. Autodynamics displays such a blatant

disregard of the physics literature that the third statement in

OBJ2 is highly suspect (see my "Opinions" article).

The fundamental assumption of all physics is that there is an underlying

"something" out there which is independent of all observers, and which

is basically understandable by humans. That is, that there are regular

and quantifiable Laws which govern phenomena in the real world. And

these Laws exist independent of which observer applies them -- both the

phenomena and the Laws that govern them are independent of an observer's

point of view, position in space, position in time, or any other personal

attribute of the observer.

Now consider multiple observers making measurements of the same set of

phenomena. We will neglect the organizational issues of how they arrange

to not bump into each other (etc.). We will also permit each observer

to select her own coordinate system, in whatever manner she chooses.

{Free suggestion to the next Einstein: many of our conceptual

difficulties center around coordinate systems; can you formulate

physical laws WITHOUT using any coordinate system? Autodynamics

makes no attempt to do so, and I will not pursue this aside.}

As each observer is observing the same phenomena, there must be a

definite relationship between their individual measurements.

If observer A uses a coordinate system F to make measurements,

and observer B uses coordinate system F' for measurements, and they both

observe the same phenomena, then there MUST be some definite relationship

between their measurements because they are measuring the same phenomena.

If observer A uses F to measure everything of importance about F', then

these measurements (using F) of F' should enable A to relate A's measurements

of the phenomena (using F) to B's measurements of the same phenomena

(using F').

We call this relationship between measurements in two different

coordinate systems a "coordinate transformation". In a quantitative

mathematical environment there must be definite equations specifying

this transformation. From the physical situation, measurements in F of

F' must be sufficient to relate measurements in F' to measurements in F.

In the above discussion we could exchange the labels A and F with the

labels B and F'. We immediately see that the transformation equations

relating F to F' must be the inverse of the equations relating F' to F.

And if F and F' are merely different labels for a single coordinate

system, there must also be an Identity transformation which relates

a coordinate system to itself.

If instead of two observers there are three (call the third C and her

coordinate system F"), any of the labels in the above discussion

could be replaced by the labels C and F". There must be transformation

equations relating all three coordinate systems in pairs:

F -> F' F' -> F

F -> F" F" -> F

F' -> F" F" -> F'

And moreover, all of these transformation equations must be consistent.

As all three observers are measuring the same phenomena, it cannot

matter whether one relates the measurements of A and C by using F -> F"

or by using F -> F' and F' -> F".

EXAMPLE 1: let A use CGS units, B use MKS units, and C use

English units. Then it is clearly possible to relate each

set of measurements to the other sets. And it makes no

difference by which path the relationship is followed

(within experimental errors and arithmetic accuracy).

EXAMPLE 2: consider the Gregorian, Mayan, Julian, Hebrew,

Hindu, Chinese, Sumerian, and Islamic calendars.

You clearly need the measurements in one calendar of the

origin of another calendar before you can relate dates

among the different calendars (you also need additional

measurements because months are not the same length, etc.).

But it is clearly possible to do so, because the underlying

phenomena (days, seasons, moon phases, etc.) are the same.

The details may be difficult, but in principle it is possible.

These are trivial examples based on scale and origin differences.

They do, however, illustrate the principle that different

coordinate systems can be related to each other via the

underlying physical phenomena.

The above discussion has not specified anything about A, B, or C, or

F, F' or F". Thus it must apply to all possible observers and to all

possible coordinate systems.

This is now enough to declare: The set of all coordinate transformations

must form a group. The group composition rule is clearly successive

application of transformation. The above discussion has established

the four group criteria:

1. There is an Identity in the group.

2. The composition of any two members of the group is also

a member of the group.

3. Every group member has an inverse which is in the group.

{The composition of any member with its inverse gives

the Identity member.}

4. The composition of any 3 group members is associative.

That is, (A*B)*C = A*(B*C), where '*' represents composition.

{O.K. I have not established item 4. I leave that as an

interesting exercise for the reader. It is not used below.}

{O.K. I have glossed over some mathematical details. This is a

physics discussion, not mathematics. Start a new thread if you

insist on discussing this.}

It is important to remember that it is coordinate transformations which

form a group, not coordinate systems. The Identity transformation maps

any given coordinate system to itself -- this has no relation whatsoever

to any concept of "absolute space" or any "preferred reference frame".

The understanding that coordinate transformations form a group is a

compelling (and powerful) observation about how observers and phenomena

interrelate. It has no dependence upon Special Relativity, and depends

only upon the implicit physical situation of multiple observers

measuring phenomena.

But it is a strong underpinning of Special Relativity. See

my recent article posted to sci.physics.relativity --

Subject: A Physicist's Derivation of Special Relativity.

That article uses this group requirement to deduce the

transformation equations of SR.

The "Simplified Lorentz Equations" of Autodynamics fail item 2.

The successive application of two such transformations does not

generate another such transformation. This is the kiss of death

for a theory, because it implies that the form of the transformation

is not the same for all observers. That is, the physical laws of the

theory are not independent of the personal details of an observer.

That is completely unacceptable.

Note that the Autodynamics website contains several statements to the

effect that Einstein's error was to surreptitiously introduce a third

coordinate system into the discussion, and that his approach does not

make sense without this third coordinate system. I was unable to follow

their argument, but I suspect they will jump with glee on the above

discussion, pointing out that it inherently requires three observers

and three coordinate systems. I merely point out that it makes no

sense to propose a theory which artificially limits the world to one or

two observers. Science is inherently ecumenical -- any number can play.

While the above discussion happens to use three observers, it clearly

generalizes to any number.

The fact that Autodynamics fails such a fundamental tenet of scientific

theory is both interesting and disappointing. My second article

discusses this further. It is

Subject: A Physicist's Opinion of Autodynamics

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

APPENDIX -- PROOF THAT AUTODYNAMICS TRANSFORMATIONS DO NOT FORM A GROUP

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Autodynamics section "...FRAMES: Derivation 2"

[http://www.autodynamics.org/Frames/Deriv2New.html], equation 19

gives the Autodynamics "Simplified Lorentz Equations". In my ASCII

notation they are:

x' = v1 * t / sqrt(1 - B1**2) 1

t' = t / sqrt(1 - B1**2) 2

Here x and t are measurements in F; x' and t' are measurements in F';

B1 is "beta-sub-1"; B1 == v1/c for the motion of F measured in F'.

This holds for any arbitrary v1 (velocity between frames F and F').

Introducing observer C (coordinate system F"), we also get from their

equation 19:

x" = v2 * t' / sqrt(1 - B2**2) 3

t" = t' / sqrt(1 - B2**2) 4

Here x' and t' are measurements in F'; x" and t" are measurements in F";

B2 is "beta-sub-2"; B2 == v2/c for the motion of F' measured in F".

This holds for any arbitrary v2 (velocity between frames F' and F").

We can also use their equation 19 to directly relate F" to F:

x" = v3 * t / sqrt(1 - B3**2) 5

t" = t / sqrt(1 - B3**2) 6

Here x and t are measurements in F; x" and t" are measurements in F";

B3 is "beta-sub-3"; B3 == v3/c for the motion of F measured in F".

This holds for any v3 (velocity between frames F and F").

Note that B1, B2, and B3 relate the reference frames, not measurements

of phenomena (ditto for v1, v2, v3).

Substituting 1 and 2 into 3 and 4:

x" = v2 * t /( sqrt(1-B1**2) * sqrt(1-B2**2) ) 7

t" = t /( sqrt(1-B1**2) * sqrt(1-B2**2) ) 8

For these transformation equations to form a group, equations 5 and 6

must be the same as equations 7 and 8. As these transformation equations

hold for all x and t (and all x" and t"), we can equate the factors

of t:

v3 / sqrt(1 - B3**2) = v2 /( sqrt(1-B1**2)*sqrt(1-B2**2) ) 9

1 / sqrt(1 - B3**2) = 1 /( sqrt(1-B1**2)*sqrt(1-B2**2) ) 10

Substituting 10 into 9 we get:

v3 = v2 11

Substituting 11 into 10 we get (remember B1 == v1/c, etc.):

1 = 1 / sqrt(1 - v1**2 / c**2) 12

Solving for v1 we get:

v1 = 0 13

This is very strange -- we started out with arbitrary v1 and v2, but

have concluded that v1=0. Clearly we have a contradiction.

Thus, when composing two Autodynamics transformations, the result will

be another Autodynamics transformation ONLY when one of the original two

transformations is the identity transformation (V=0).

Clearly the set of Autodynamics transformation do not form a group,

because the composition of any two transformations does not give

another transformation.

Feb 20, 1998, 3:00:00â€¯AM2/20/98

to

On 19 Feb 1998, Warren Dixon wrote:

> Over the past few days I have been posting to news groups over the theories

> opposing Einstein's theories of relativity, as part of my A Level R&A

> Project. The main one I have been trying to gather information on is

> Autodynamics as this seems to be the most documented. This has provoked

> some "Very" different come backs.

>

> Not only have people been posting to the news groups, but I have received

> Nemours E-mails (which are very insightful) and there are very strong

> opinions both for and against. My problem is that although I have received

> MANY more responses in support of Einstein's theories, they all seem to

> follow the same format...... "Einstein's theories are accepted, accept this

> yourself".

I distance myself from people who say that. I myself have made a posting

here in which I have described my previous encounters with AD supporters.

If you want, I can send you (through personal email, these groups have

seen enough of AD) a description with why the AD people are wrong in their

accusations to SRT and why their own derivation is unacceptably sloppy.

Also, Mr. Carr (or wasn't it you?) has pointed out a few times already in

these groups that there have been experiments with autodynamics and the

data didn't look good for the AD people. The reason that the people who

have actually thought about don't respond is because they have done so so

many times already.

> The several that I have got from AD supporters are very

> passionate, and they tend to go out of there way to give me information on

> the subject.

>

> I have tried to Instigate arguments (or discussions) but I keep Receiving

> the same belligerent answers and hope that Someone can 'show me' that one or

> the other can be proven and if it is "unrealistic" why!

If you want to know, mail me personally about it, because I don't want to

start the discussion on this group again.

Dries van Oosten

// No more drugs for that man.

// Standard disclaimer applies.

[Sci.physics.research moderator's note: given Tom Roberts' post refuting

autodynamics, we urge that further discussion of the subject be taken

to sci.physics, and we have taken the liberty of setting followups to

that group. - jb]

Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00â€¯AM2/21/98

to

Here is the second Article about Autodynamics which I posted in November 1996.

Again, I have not visited their site since, and have no idea whether or not

the errors and confusions I describe are still present on their site.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

--- BEGIN ANCIENT INCLUDED ARTICLE ---

Subject: A Physicist's Opinion of Autodynamics

ADMINISTRIVIA

-------------

Notation:

A paragraph indented by a <TAB> indicates an aside or comment not part

of the main text. Such a paragraph beginning "OBJ" or "ANS" indicates

my anticipation of an objection and my answer to it.

Math: A * B indicates multiplication; A / B is division; X ** Y indicates

exponentiation; = is mathematical equality (NOT the FORTRAN meaning);

== means "is identically the same as"; sqrt(X) is the square root of X.

Abbreviations:

AD == Autodynamics

SR == Special Relativity

GR == General Relativity

wrt == with respect to

A PHYSICIST'S OPINION OF AUTODYNAMICS

-------------------------------------

by Tom Roberts, tjro...@lucent.com

My earlier article (Subject: A Physicist's Refutation of Autodynamics)

presented a technical refutation of AD (http://www.autodynamics.org).

This article presents a collection of random musings which occurred

to me while investigating that Website and preparing an article on

why I believe that Autodynamics will not ever enter mainstream physics.

I have separated my posting into two articles, because I expect a

protracted flame war from the advocates of AD. That's understandable --

they have clearly expended a lot of effort on their Website and enormously

more emotional energy in their devotion to "The Cause".

Mass Marketing comes to physics. Their Website even advertises

T-shirts touting Autodynamics (!).

I expect that this article will generate more flames than the first one;

by separating the two parts I hope to permit people interested in the

narrow technical aspects to not get drowned out by those who disagree with

my personal opinions and suggestions.

This article contains the following sections:

1. Thoughts on general aspects of physical laws.

2. Thoughts on physicists and their reactions to crackpots.

3. Thoughts on scholarship and accuracy in publications.

4. Observations about Autodynamics.

5. Conclusions

I decided to prepare and post these articles initially because I felt

that the AD advocates at www.autodynamics.org presented an

unwarranted "paranoid" case about physicists in general (see section

2 below). I visited the Autodynamics Website out of curiosity and a

faint hope that they had actually discovered something important and

useful; as I said in the last paragraph of my first article, I was

truly disappointed to learn they had not.

My other motivation for preparing and posting these articles is a

desire to advance people's knowledge about physical theories. I feel

that the anti-science "Creationists" are still a menace to science,

freedom, and intellectual discourse, and that the more people who have

some understanding of what physics is really about, the more likely we

are to prevail.

Autodynamics and its advocates are no danger at all. Not

because their ideas are wrong (which happens....), but because

they are honestly pursuing their cause in an intellectual

manner. The Creationists pursue their cause in a political

arena, seeking to banish intellectual discourse from the

entire political process (including the public schools!).

I would also like to think that my articles might convince the people

who have spent so much time and energy on AD to redirect their

efforts to some real physics. If not that, then I at least hope to

save other people the time and effort of pursuing a dead end.

I hope these articles will serve as a "primer" to others who think they

have a new theory which will replace all others. There are extremely

strong constraints on physical theories, and if the crackpots would

first make sure their theories take them into account, then their

writings would be much more likely to receive attention from the physics

community. This would be a service to BOTH the crackpots and to the

community as a whole. There are similarly strong constraints on the

scholarship of the authors of any putative theory -- understanding

those as well would be a service.

The most interesting new theories of the past have all involved major

modifications to the then-current constraints on physical theories --

I expect this to remain true in the future. But all theories which have

become mainstream have dealt with this explicitly and convincingly.

I just wish the crackpots would realize this simple truth.

1. THOUGHTS ON GENERAL ASPECTS OF PHYSICAL LAWS

-----------------------------------------------

There are some very general assumptions we all make which inherently

influence and direct our thinking. Many of them are inescapable ("I exist"),

and many are subject to historical accident (the use of English, having 10

fingers). Scientists have discovered many important truths about the world

which are so fundamental that any proposed theory which is incompatible

with them is usually rejected out of hand. These are very basic attitudes,

including such things as:

1. A theory must be falsifiable.

Thus, a theory "God makes everything happen" is not scientific,

because ANY phenomena can be explained by "God made it happen",

and any unobserved phenomena can be explained by "God didn't

make it happen". No counterexample could ever be found to such

a theory. Such a theory is also useless, as it can make no

predictions (no description of "God" is given).

2. The laws of physics are understandable and discoverable by humans,

at least in principle.

Without this, no physics is possible. Some parts may require

too high energies to ever be accessible, and other areas may

be inaccessible for other reasons. Some laws may be of only

statistical nature. All are probably subtle.

In particular, the laws of physics do not change for different

people or cultures. Culture and personalities may well affect

the path of discovery (and LACK of discovery), but not the laws

themselves. Sentient aliens are presumably included....

** Some of the consequences of this are that the laws of physics

cannot depend upon the personal attributes of an observer, and

that the laws of physics must be invariant for any reasonable

choice of coordinate system.

3. A theory must be able to make predictions about the real world.

That is, there must be some consequences of a theory which

can be tested. This is closely related to (1) above.

4. A theory should conform to other theories when their regions of

applicability overlap.

This is a powerful statement. The "classical limit" is a strong

touchstone for SR, Quantum Mechanics, and many other theories.

5. A theory must permit multiple observers to reconcile their

measurements.

That is, if multiple observers (people) observe a single

experiment, they should be able to confer and agree that

they all saw the same thing (at least in principle).

Physics is inherently ecumenical; any number can play.

(This is intimately related to 2 above.)

** One consequence of this is that the transformations among

coordinate systems must form a group.

6. Observations made on a physical system inherently interact with

and modify that system. Such actions cannot be ignored.

Observations are not a "special" operation independent of the

system being observed, but are an integral part of it. The

state of the observer cannot (in general) be separated from the

state of the system. In the "normal" world, and in the world

of AD and SR, typical observations can be shown to be negligible,

so this principle is not used below.

In addition, there are some general symmetries which it seems impossible

to avoid:

7. A theory should be isotropic and homogeneous in space.

That is, there should be no "preferred direction" or "preferred

origin" in the theory. An amazing new theory which carefully

explained WHY it does not meet this criteria might also be

acceptable, but the explanation would have to be convincing.

General Relativity is an example of a theory which required

modifications to this principle (in GR homogeneity is only local,

not global).

** Two consequences of this are that momentum is conserved and

angular momentum is conserved (with suitable definitions).

8. A theory should be independent of time.

That is, it should not behave differently at different times.

Objects of the theory may well have time dependencies, but the

theory itself should not. Again, a convincing explanation of

why this is violated might be acceptable.

** One consequence of this is that energy is conserved (with a

suitable definition of energy).

** A consequence of 7 and 8 combined is that only relative motion

is observable (motion of one object with respect to another).

Observe that the "Law of Conservation of Momentum" and the "Law of

Conservation of Energy" are not explicitly listed here. They are

consequences of what I consider to be more fundamental and basic

symmetries.

Note, however, that major revolutions in physics usually end up modifying

such basic concepts. Fish never see the water, and when somebody has a

major new insight about basic assumptions, it usually is revolutionary.

SR, GR, and Quantum Mechanics are three of the most well-known revolutions

in physics (not to mention Galileo, Copernicus, etc.). All of these

involved major changes in then-current basic attitudes.

{Free suggestion to the next Einstein: I have flagged with "**"

some of the more important consequences of these basic concepts.

They are all well known and described in the physics literature.

As previous revolutions in science have all included modifications

to these basic attitudes, study these consequences well and find

a hole in one of them -- that is the way to revolutionize physics.

AD has made no attempt to do so, and I will not pursue this aside.}

2. THOUGHTS ON PHYSICISTS AND THEIR REACTIONS TO CRACKPOTS.

-----------------------------------------------------------

First off, remember that physicists are people. As such we have a limited

professional lifetime. TIME is the primary coin of a professional career,

and spending it wisely is the sine qua non of success.

Crackpot theories have been proposed since science began. I label

a theory "Crackpot" if it meets most or all of the following:

A. It is described only in a "hand-waving" manner.

B. Its presentation exhibits a clear lack of understanding

of general physical principles (such as 1-8 above).

C. It is presented with obscure and/or confusing notation.

D. It is presented in a deliberately obfuscatory way.

E. It uses standard notation in a deliberately perverted way

(or in an inadvertently perverted way).

F. Its presentation is full of trivial errors or omissions.

G. Its presentation shows a clear lack of familiarity with

the relevant literature.

H. It makes wildly optimistic claims about revolutionizing

the foundations of science.

I. Its presentation claims to point out errors in existing

theory, without a detailed proof they are really errors.

J. In attempting to disprove an established theory, it uses

an erroneous or oversimplified description of that theory.

These items are not absolute, and it is certainly possible that a

"real" theory might meet many of them. These are more a sort of

check list to save time (and effort). A new theory which exhibits

many of these stigmata will probably be ignored by most scientists

-- not because they fear new ideas, but because it just probably isn't

worth their time and effort.

In another context, James "The Amazing" Randi said "Extraordinary

claims require extraordinary proof." While he was talking about claims

of the paranormal, the same principle applies here. If a new theory is

going to supplant or replace an existing one, it must be carefully

explained and meticulously documented. Slipshod scholarship will

not get anyone to listen, and will not convince anyone but other

crackpots.

3. THOUGHTS ON SCHOLARSHIP AND ACCURACY IN PUBLICATIONS.

--------------------------------------------------------

Scholarship and accuracy are basically an issue of being honest and

fair to the reader:

a. It is not fair to quote the one article which supports your

point while ignoring hundreds of others which refute it.

b. It is not fair to the reader to make trivial arithmetic or

spelling mistakes, because they cause confusion and delay.

c. It is not fair to make deliberately misleading statements.

d. It is not fair to take quotations out of context so their

full meaning is hidden or distorted.

e. It is not fair to use standard terminology or notation in

an unusual or misleading manner.

f. It is not fair to change notation and/or its meaning in the

middle of an article or series of articles.

g. It is not fair to make the reader guess what your notation

means; all notation should be defined.

h. It is not fair to the reader to be ignorant of the relevant

literature on the subject.

i. It is not fair to report inaccurate or erroneous results, as

that can cause confusion and wasted efforts.

j. It is not fair to omit discussions of experimental errors,

biases, or known inadequacies.

k. It is not fair to omit proofreading your writing and removing

gross mistakes.

l. It is not fair to make the reader guess which previous paper is

being discussed or criticized; references are essential.

m. It is not fair to omit references to other relevant papers;

neither to the reader nor to the other authors.

In summary, good scholarship requires time and effort on the part of

the author.

OBJ3: O.K. wise guy, how about your (lack of) scholarship in

these articles?

ANS3: Admittedly my scholarship is not perfect here -- I am matching

it to the medium (USENET), which is noted for its frequent lack of

any common sense at all (!). I believe my scholarship and accuracy

are adequate for the task, and are sufficiently higher than that

of the theory I am criticizing that the result is credible. As

always, it is a question of how much time to spend.

So far, I have not seen ANY seriously-studied analysis of AD

on sci.physics.relativity, but only the typical USENET flamewar

consisting of "you said" - "I did not, but you said" ... confusion.

While some of the messages included real and cogent criticism, none

so far have included what I consider to be the "stake through

the heart" which I am trying to describe here. I believe this article

significantly exceeds the usual USENET standard of scholarship.

Specifically, my list above in section 1 is arbitrary, and completely

a product of my own memory and biases. A more proper list would

be a summary of the many books and articles in the history and

foundations of science. At present I have neither the time nor

the inclination to prepare such a survey; the list above seems to

me to be adequate for the task at hand.

4. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT AUTODYNAMICS.

-----------------------------------

All of my sources for Autodynamics come from the Website

http://www.autodynamics.org, on November 1, 1996. While it may be

"untraditional" to critique a theory from a Website rather than

from papers published in technical journals, in this case it is my

only option (AD has a very sparse literature, and I don't have

access to the journals mentioned in the Website).

References to specific articles are as follows:

[Gal Simp] http://www.autodynamics.org/Frames/Deriv1.html

[Frames Lay] (URL lost) header is "...FRAMES: Layman"

title is "Frames in Relative Movement"

[Derivation 2] http://www.autodynamics.org/Frames/Deriv2New.html

[Muon Decay] http://www.autodynamics.org/Engaging/Engaging.html

Heading: TIME DILATION - Muon Decay

[Lorentz Inv.] http://www.autodynamics.org/Engaging/Engaging.html

Heading: LORENTZ INVARIANCE

[Neutrino] http://www.autodynamics.org/Engaging/Engaging.html

Heading: NEUTRINO SPECTRUM

[Entropy] http://www.autodynamics.org/Cosmos/Entropy.html

[Paper] http://www.autodynamics.org/Experiments/MuonDecy.html

In addition, I will occasionally reference my own recent postings

to sci.physics.relativity:

[Refutation] Subject: A Physicist's Refutation of

Autodynamics

[Derivation of SR] Subject: A Physicist's Derivation of

Special Relativity

If you cannot obtain a copy of these, email me at

tjro...@lucent.com for a copy.

According to the Website, AD is over 50 years old.

I would expect that such a mature theory would have a derivation

and arguments which have been carefully honed over five decades, so

that no details were omitted, no trivial or elementary errors would

remain, and no fundamental flaws appeared in the theory. In other

words, I would expect to find at least a sturdily-built edifice to

compare to the towering monument which is Special Relativity.

Instead, I found cobwebs. Cobwebs full of holes. Enormous holes.

During the past 50 years they have amassed a paltry amount of writing

(comparable in quantity to 3 or 4 weeks of homework in a graduate physics

program, but not in quality). What they have is poorly argued, lacking

in detail, full of elementary and trivial errors, and contains several

fundamental flaws. It appears to me that even the authors of AD

do not take it seriously, OR DO NOT EVEN HAVE A CLUE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO

TAKE A PHYSICAL THEORY SERIOUSLY.

This section is by no means a complete review of the Autodynamics

Website. It will merely record those thoughts and observations I had

while touring it, and while reading the papers I printed out.

This section contains the following subsections:

4.1 Specific technical errors

4.2 Examples of lack of understanding of basic physical concepts

4.3 Lack of scholarship

4.1 Specific Technical Errors

-----------------------------

4.1.1 The AD transformation equations do not form a group

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This was the conclusion of my first article [Refutation]; I will not repeat

it here. I will reiterate, however, that the physical consequences of

this fundamental failure of AD are devastating. It implies that the

"Laws of Autodynamics" change for each and every observer, and that

multiple observers cannot reconcile their observations with each other.

This is completely unacceptable in this post-Einstein world.

4.1.2 Absence of justification for Equation 10

----------------------------------------------

In [Derivation 2], in the sentence preceding equation 10, it says

"Without the extra coordinate system, AD describes position and time for

one frame of reference as only a function of time". No explanation

is given of why this is justified or possible. This is merely an "Ansatz",

or statement out of the blue. The entire argument beyond this point is

pure speculation, and based upon this Ansatz.

OBJ4: But isn't that what other theories do? Don't they

simply postulate some hypothesis and see where it leads?

ANS4: Well, yes and no. First, mainstream theories which do

such a thing make it explicitly clear when they do so; AD

buried it in the middle without any notice to the reader.

Second, mainstream theories make at least a passing argument

why the Ansatz makes physical sense; AD did not. And third,

mainstream theories like SR and GR have since found alternative

derivations which do not depend upon any Ansatz; AD has not.

OBJ5: But we DID justify this with a physical argument. Just

look at [... somewhere else, I don't know where ...].

ANS5: If you are going to derive a theory, you must either

include the entire argument or include references to places where

the reader can find the complete argument. You did neither.

4.1.3 Use of Incomplete Transformation equations

------------------------------------------------

In [Derivation 2] the argument leading from Equations 19 to equations 21

involves differentiation to obtain velocity transformation equations.

This is only justified if the Equations 19 are indeed transformation

equations. But they cannot be, because they do not form a 1-to-1 mapping

of one coordinate system (F) onto another (F').

OBJ6: But that doesn't matter. In F, the point P is always

at the origin (x = 0), so we don't need to consider any other x.

ANS6: By differentiating Eqn 19 you are saying in effect: "If

an object is moving wrt F and has its velocity measured in F,

then we can relate its velocity in F to its velocity in F' by

equations 21". But the argument leading up to equations 19 implicitly

requires x == 0. In the discussion immediately following equation 3

of [Derivation 2], it states "Yet Equation (3) has 3 velocities even

though it must only have 2." This is one of the few places in the

Website where I found a real physical argument, and the AD authors

completely ignored its implications (!). The act of differentiating

Eqn 1 to obtain eqn 3 is implicitly considering motion in F, but

the authors are puzzled why the term dx/dt appears in eqn 3 (dx/dt

is velocity measured in F, and appeared because of the differential

nature of differentiation). Their dogmatic claim that P is at rest

in F is incompatible with differentiation to obtain the velocity

transformation equations. In other words, they are trying to claim

that F can only be used to measure a single point, and simultaneously

are differentiating (which inherently involves neighboring points).

Please note the difference between x = 0 in OBJ6 and

x == 0 in ANS6.

4.1.4 Differentiation of Transformation Equations done improperly

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In [Derivation 2] the argument leading from Equations 19 to equations 21

involves differentiation with respect to t'. It is done using the

invalid rule:

dx'

--

dx' dt

-- = --------- {INVALID !}

dt' dt'

--

dt

Differentiation is NOT division, and this "rule" is invalid. This error

is in pure Calculus, not physics at all. The proper way to compute this

derivative is via the chain rule:

dx' dx' dt {valid only if x' is a function of t only,

-- = -- * -- and t is a function of t' only, which

dt' dt dt' don't necessarily hold.}

The proper equations require partial derivatives wrt both x and t, for

which my ASCII notation is woefully inadequate; this gives the basic

concept. Note that computing the second factor requires inverting equations

19 to obtain t as a function of t'.

Because of the specific form of equations 19, the invalid rule actually

gives the correct answer. The same error was used between equations 2

and 3, again fortuitously obtaining the correct answer.

OBJ7: Aren't you being overly pedantic, after all they got

the right answer.

ANS7: This goes right to the heart of the credibility of the

authors of AD. Not only do they not justify important steps

of the derivation, but some of their justifications are plain

wrong (though this particular error is correctable).

4.2 Examples of Lack of Understanding of Basic Physical Concepts

----------------------------------------------------------------

4.2.1 Lack of Understanding of what a Coordinate System is

----------------------------------------------------------

In [Gal Simp] the authors of AD attempt to show that using more than

one coordinate reference frame is "[...] useless, inoperative, and

superfluous" [para 4 of [Gal Simp]]. They base this argument on the

claim that "self observation of a point is absolutely impossible"

[Para 18 of [Gal Simp]].

In modern physics, a coordinate system (or frame of reference) is

no more (or less) than the ability to make measurements. In particular

it is NOT a physical entity, but is an abstract "ruler" against which

events can be marked and measured. An example is the lines of latitude

and longitude on the surface of the earth (this example is neither

inertial nor Euclidean, but it is still a valid and useful coordinate

system); the satellite GPS is a way of making direct measurements in it.

I don't know precisely what is meant by "self observation of a point"

(because measurement is certainly NOT "self observation"), but there

is surely nothing wrong with using a co-moving coordinate system to

measure the location of point P. Yes, it will be dull, and every

measurement will give the same x value, but it is not meaningless

and may well be important. Imagine that successive events will occur

at point P (e.g. the creation of a particle, and its subsequent decay).

Then the measurement that both occur at the same x value (in F) is probably

important.

Note that restricting the world to a single coordinate system is

extremely limiting: in a colliding beam experiment there are

three different reference frames (coordinate systems) of interest:

the Center of Mass (i.e. the laboratory), and the rest frames of

the two incident particles. You will need to do computations in

multiple coordinate systems if you ever want to compare colliding

beam experiments with fixed target experiments (in which one of

the incident particles is at rest in the laboratory). As I have

mentioned before, it is also unphysical to make such a restriction.

4.2.2 Lack of Understanding of What Relative Motion is.

-------------------------------------------------------

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of [Frames Lay] discuss a thought experiment in which

only you and Ricardo exist in the universe. The analogy "Now imagine that

velocity is now acceleration [...]" is hopelessly naive. It says "[...]

there is no reference point [...]", but there are TWO obvious reference

points: yourself and Ricardo (not the "infinite number" disparaged in the

next sentence). It then claims "Something must be different between the two

which answers the question 'who is moving?'". But that is NOT true. One

can choose to take your point of view (coordinate system) or Ricardo's

point of view (coordinate system). The answer to "Who is moving?" depends

upon which point of view is taken (and the equations of SR apply equally

well to either choice). From the way this last sentence is phrased, it

is clear that the authors simply don't understand this concept.

The conclusion that only relative motions are observable

is not limited to SR. It is a profound consequence of the

homogeneity, isotropy, and time invariance of space.

In the preceding paragraph (paragraph 2 of [Frames Lay]), the author lists

only three possibilities of interpreting a relative motion observed by

both you and Ricardo: "(1) you are moving and Ricardo is stationary,

(2) Ricardo is moving and you are stationary, or (3) both of you are moving

at one of an infinite possible summations of the observed speed." The

author doesn't understand that another choice is possible: (4) all of the

above. And that is the correct choice.

The concept "motion" cannot be divorced from the selection of a coordinate

system; in other words, "motion relative to this" (as a coordinate system

is abstract, there need not be a physical object involved). By choosing a

system comoving with Ricardo, (1) is the answer; by choosing a system

comoving with you, (2) is the answer; and by choosing any other coordinate

system (not comoving with either), (3) is the answer. The whole point of SR

is that you can do physics (and apply the SR equations) in ANY of these

coordinate systems (as long as the coordinate system used satisfies the

requirements of SR - inertial, etc.).

Similarly, the answers to the questions of para 3: "Who is getting

smaller?", "Whose clock is slowing?", "Whose mass is decreasing?"

all depend upon the answer to the prior question "Who is asking

these questions?". If you ask "Whose clock is slowing?", you will

answer "Ricardo's", and if Ricardo asks "Whose clock is slowing?"

he will answer "Yours". AND THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY HERE.

If you and Ricardo were to consult with a third observer, that

observer would tell you "Yes, when you measure Ricardo's clock

you perceive it as running slower than yours. And yes, when

Ricardo measures your clock he perceives it as running slower

than his. And yes, when you each tell me how much slower the

other's is running, I can bring both measurements into agreement

with my own measurements by applying the appropriate Lorentz

transformation to the results." The fact that the Lorentz

transformations form a group ensures that this reconciliation

is possible.

Please note that the third observer is NOT essential to this

discussion. For you can also say "Yes, I agree, when I apply

the appropriate Lorentz transformation to Ricardo's measurements,

I obtain agreement with my own." And Ricardo can say "Yes, when I

apply the appropriate Lorentz transformation to your measurements,

I obtain agreement with mine."

The "Relativity Principle" being discussed here is merely a direct

consequence of the fact that whenever a question such as "Whose clock

is slowing?" is asked, SOMEBODY did the asking. And the answer can

depend upon who is asking (I assume that the question is retorical,

and is answered by the same person doing the asking; I did not frame

the discussion in this awkward way, the AD author did).

Note that this is in no way inconsistent with items 2 and 5 of

section 1 above. The LAWS of physics must be independent of an

observer's personal details, but the MEASUREMENTS of each observer

certainly can depend upon the details of the observer's coordinate

system (etc.) -- imagine coordinate systems using CGS and MKS units;

their values will differ, but they can be reconciled using the

appropriate coordinate transformation. While the differing answers

to the question "Whose clock is slowing?" are contrary to our

everyday experience, they are NOT inconsistent with each other

(when properly interpreted) or with the basic expectations of

physical theories of section 1.

This same lack of understanding is exhibited explicitly in the "frames tour"

(http://www.autodynamics.org/FrameTour/FTStart.html), which claims to be

a visual description of relative motion. In the 5th step of the tour

(FT5.html), the pictures are stated to be from "your video display boom

camera", but (1) no boom is visible, and (2) your image MOVES later in the

tour (FT10.html, again in FT11.html, ...). The author has gratuitously

introduced a THIRD reference frame, that of the camera.

Yes, this particular error could easily be fixed. But it

illustrates how basic and pervasive is the authors' lack of

understanding of concepts central to their argument.

4.2.3 Lack of Understanding of What Entropy Is.

-----------------------------------------------

In paragraph 3 of [Entropy] the author equates entropy with energy.

Entropy is NOT energy, and the difference is profound (and interesting).

4.2.4 Lack of Understanding of what Invariance Means

----------------------------------------------------

In paragraph 2 of [Lorentz Inv.], it says "From the moment AD discards

two frames in relative motion, the concept of 'invariance' becomes

meaningless". The concept of invariance is simply that the laws of physics

cannot depend upon which coordinate system you happen to choose -- the laws

are INVARIANT regardless of this choice. AD can certainly choose to use

only one frame (coordinate system) in their derivation, but they cannot

arbitrarily dismiss observations made using other coordinate systems.

Invariance is not "meaningless", even if their derivation doesn't use it.

And if they truly mean to impeach the modern concept of invariance,

then they need a cogent and compelling argument of why this is so.

Here (and elsewhere) it is merely stated as if it were an obvious

fact, with no supporting argument whatsoever.

4.2.5 Lack of Understanding of Experimental Errors and Environment

------------------------------------------------------------------

In paragraph 3 of [Neutrino] it says "A mass of 20 eV is accepted,

and simultaneously that this Neutrino is traveling at light speed. The

contradiction is evident throughout SR".

{I strongly suspect that this should have read "An upper limit

on the rest mass of the neutrino of 20 eV is accepted ..."

As far as I know, there is no experiment which rules out a

rest mass of 0, while I do remember quotes of an upper limit

around 20 eV. I have not looked recently, and there are probably

new experiments and papers which are relevant.}

As no references are given, I cannot go to the original papers to verify

that the original authors really did expect a 20 eV neutrino to travel

at light speed, but I seriously doubt it. As SR is a pervasive part of the

intellectual environment of such an experiment, such an expectation would

be unusual indeed! Rather, I suspect the situation is more like "We cannot

rule out a non-zero neutrino mass as long as it is less than 20 eV." The

experimenters probably made no stronger statement than that. The SR

environment would then imply "A non-zero rest mass would of course mean

that the neutrinos travel at slightly less than the speed of light, but

we did not measure this directly."

I suspect that these experiments involve neutrinos with energies

of at least several MeV. In SR, a 20 MeV object with a rest mass of

20 eV would travel at 0.999999 c. Many experiments might not be

able to distinguish that from 1.000000 c. The neutrino experiment

in which I participated included neutrinos of 1 to 50 GeV, which

SR and a 20 eV rest mass would imply travel at approximately

0.999999999 c. Our apparatus was completely incapable of measuring

either the neutrino velocity or its rest mass (neither was of

interest in that experiment).

The above-quoted "contradiction" is NOT "evident throughout SR". It is

only the AD authors' lack of understanding of the experimental environment

which caused them to perceive a contradiction at all.

4.2.6 Lack of Understanding of Special Relativity

-----------------------------------------------

In paragraph 7 of [Muon Decay] (beginning "Gamma is equal ..."), the

author claims "[...] it is necessary to eliminate the the position term

(v x)/c^2 from [the Lorentz equations]". He calls this "surreptitious"

elimination "magic".

Note that the AD author's notation "(v x)/c^2" would be

"(v * x)/c**2" in my ASCII notation.

There is nothing "surreptitious" or "magic" about this. Given the physical

situation described, the "gamma" of the AD article is relating a frame

co-moving with the particle to a frame at rest in the laboratory. In

the unprimed frame (co-moving with the particle), let the particle be

located at any x; clearly this value remains constant for the duration of

the experiment. Observe that in the discussion only time DIFFERENCES

are used; the origin of time is NOT significant. When using the Lorentz

equations to compute time differences, this position term will cancel

out (because both v and x are constant). Alternatively, you are free to

select the origin of the co-moving frame such that the particle is always

at x = 0; then this term is always zero (and still cancels out).

In any case, the "position term" is not "eliminated", it merely does not

contribute to anything of physical significance in this particular situation.

4.3 Lack of Scholarship

-----------------------

To anyone who has actually read a scientific paper, the lack of scholarship

exhibited throughout the AD Website is immediately obvious. I will

discuss only a few of the most blatant examples.

Scholarship is NOT an outmoded requirement of the past, or an incidental

or optional part of scientific discourse. The ability of others to

"check your work" is an integral part of the scientific process.

Besides, poor scholarship is extremely impolite, to both the reader and

to the original authors in the field.

4.3.1 Criticism of SR without ANY supporting argument

-----------------------------------------------------

In several places above I have pointed out where the AD authors claim

SR "made an error", or "performed magic", etc. In NONE of these cases

did the AD author bother to explain precisely how the error was made,

or argue or explain why it is an error. They simply claim an error was

made, and proceed with their (usually flawed) argument.

This is simply unacceptable. AD claims it is attempting to either "replace"

or to "supplant" SR (the verb depends upon which part of the Website you

look at). If they are really going to do this, they had better explain in

no uncertain terms what is wrong with SR. They have not done so; they have

not even tried.

As I quoted above, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Today it is extraordinary to claim that SR is wrong, and AD has presented

not a single shred of proof.

4.3.2 Absence of References

---------------------------

The AD Website contains MANY mentions of SR, but contains not a single

reference to any description of it. Thus they leave the reader guessing

about what precisely it is they are discussing. It is also grossly

ungracious and impolite to the original authors of SR. Good scholarship

demands the accurate citation of sources, so that the reader can verify

that the author interpreted the referenced material correctly. By

omitting references, the AD authors prevent a precise verification of

their claims.

This lack of references is intimately related to section 4.3.3.

4.3.3 Lack of Balance in Literature Usage

-----------------------------------------

Throughout the Website there is consistently a lack of a proper literature

search. In the few instances where specific papers are cited, they

consistently select one paper which indicates a possible incompatibility

with SR, or the one paper which supports their case. They completely

ignore numerous other papers which do not support their case, and they

totally ignore the numerous papers reporting experiments which have

been performed to specifically test SR. They offer no AD analysis of

these latter, giving no opportunity to really examine AD in detail or

to compare AD and SR directly.

When discussing neutrinos, they cite primarily an ancient paper by

Buechner and Van de Graaff, completely ignoring hundreds of experiments

since.

OBJ8: Isn't this just sour grapes? After all, you did work on a

neutrino experiment.

ANS8: No. The experiment I worked on was not directly applicable

to their argument. But I am a bit puzzled because AD

claims that the neutrino simply doesn't exist; we sure saw

lots of evidence for interactions which were completely

consistent with both electron and muon neutrinos, and were

inconsistent with any other known particles.

4.3.4 Egregious Typographical Errors

------------------------------------

In the Website version of [Paper], there remains an egregious typographical

error in the title. While not notable by itself, I believe that it does

indicate the level of self-criticism exhibited by the AD authors (i.e.

virtually none).

In the title, one of the destination e+ must really be an e-.

5. CONCLUSIONS

--------------

Autodynamics is not a credible theory. The presence of basic, fundamental

errors is devastating to the derivation of its basic equations. The lack

of scholarship by its authors lends no credibility to their work. It has

languished for 50 years in a well-deserved oblivion, and I have every

expectation that it will continue to do so.

OBJ9: Oh come now, do you have to be so cruel?

ANS9: I have to be honest. The authors of AD claim to have a

theory which will "supplant" or "replace" Special Relativity.

They have failed to make their case. Utterly.

OBJ10: So how could it be "fixed" or "improved" ?

ANS10: Frankly, I seriously doubt that AD could be salvaged at all.

The basic errors described above in sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and

4.1.3 are central to the theory -- if they were truly resolved (in

the obvious way) then the resulting theory would be isomorphic to

SR.

For a discussion of this point see [Derivation of SR].

That article shows that the basic concepts described

in section 1 above are enough to derive the equations

of SR. In particular, the constancy of the speed of light

is a conclusion, not an hypothesis.

If the authors really and truly think that their central ideas

are correct and SR is incorrect, and that they have a truly novel

resolution of their errors, then they should at least improve

their scholarship to a credible level. They MUST deal with the

basic issues presented in this article if they ever hope to

attract attention from the physics community at large (not simply

because I say so, but because of the general "inertia" of a large

community and the lack of time from individual members -- they

must get past the "crackpot filters"). The AD authors MUST

include a cogent and compelling argument of how and why existing

basic attitudes must be changed to accommodate Autodynamics.

In closing, I hope that future proponents of alternative theories will

read these articles and learn their lessons:

1) Think about basic attitudes and expectations of physical theories,

and their relationship to your theory.

2) Make sure that your theory is compatible with these basic attitudes

and expectations, or that you include a cogent and compelling

discussion on how and why they must be changed.

3) Spend the time to make your arguments complete and scholarly,

or you will lose all credibility.

OBJ11: Whew! Thank goodness that's over! Why did it have to be

so long? You surely used an enormous sledgehammer on a fly!

ANS11: Yes, this did get out of hand, and is VERY MUCH longer than

I expected when I started. It all comes back to scholarship:

I wanted to make mine so good that I could criticize theirs with

a clear conscience.

In summary, I have done to Autodynamics what most zealots and crackpots

should fear the most: I took them seriously.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu