Thank you VERY MUCH for the response Mr. Jerry Decker. I really appreciate
it. Of course you are correct and there are many theories out there that
could eventually be proven and replace special and general relativity. There
are many such theories around but in my opinion the theory of autodynamics
is one of the most "developed" of these theories that I have came across.
The difference between AD and SR is amazingly simple but also very profound.
SR is derived using two frames of reference for describing a moving object:
a reference frame and observer frame. AD just simply eliminates the
reference frame and only uses the observer frame. This simple removal of
SR's reference frame is the basic cause of all differences between SR and
the theory of Autodynamics.
By removing the extra reference frame many of SR's ridiculous by products
such as time dilation, mass increase, and the neutrino disapear because
there is no justification or need for them.
Also, you mentioned that your favorite theory is that of the "aether". Well,
in AD there is a "kind" of "aether". According to AD very small particles
traveling at around 27 times the speed of light travel all across the
universe in all directions cause gravity. When these particles (which are
called picogravitons)travel through matter they are partially absorbed and
give their "impulse" to the matter. Since they are partially absorbed when
they exist a large body of matter, such as a planet, there are few of them
traveling from the planet into space than from space toward the planet. This
causes a lower "picograviton density" region around the planet. When an
object approaches a planet (or any other massive object) the higher
picograviton density behind it "pushes" the object toward the lower
picograviton density region which is around the planet.
Also, picogravitons compose are the basic particles of the universe which
compose all matter and energy.
I think that if all of you could take a look at the AD webpage at
it would be awsome because all of you are very intelligent and those in the
Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics would really appreciate hearing
your comments, ideas, suggestions, etc.
Do you believe that AD sounds similar to some of the theories that you have
read about? Of course. I have read about many theories on the net which
sound similar. But there is ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE.
The Autodynamic Theory simply, logically, and rationally shows the SIMPLE
but MAJOR flaw in SR which is the EXTRA REFERENCE FRAME which causes time
dilation, mass increase, and the need for "neutrinos" to carry off the
"missing energy" in decay cases which really does not exist but is caused by
the imaginary extra energy that the extra reference frame in SR adds....
Well, I think I will cut this post a little short..... If you would like to
visit the AD webpage I think it would be great.... Also, AD has a mailing
list that you can get info about on their webpage.
Take care and God Bless all of you.
Best Regards,
William
On 06/12/98 20:56:31 you wrote:
>
>Hi William!
>
>And what if you get an answer, which will be speculative at the very
>least??? Are you in a position to DO anything about it??? Autodynamics
>is just another theory, like so many others, including my preferred one
>of aether, none of which has been proven YET...so would the effort
>involved in working out your question be useful in any practical sense?
>
>I hear what you are saying about just blowing off relativity and the FTL
>limitations, seems like it would be a straightforward calculation...mass
>of ship, rate of acceleration for a given amount of fuel and how long
>that acceleration would have to last to achieve then double the speed of
>light, ASSUMING that relativity would not matter, your basic video
>game...<g>...
>
>Look it up in a physics book, I've seen the basic formulas which could
>be easily adapted to resolve your question....you know there is an old
>precept that says you should do all that YOU can to achieve your answers
>of goals, and when you are at the apparent end of your rope, you will
>receive the help you need.
>
>Sounds great, but I've not seen it happen in reality in my life, though
>I've not HONESTLY tried to resolve some fairly simple questions in the
>form of experiments..
>
>Anyway, get thee to a physics book, check out the sections of
>acceleration, velocity, mass, etc...all the formulas will be there...in
>fact, I think you could probably adapt the train speed or automobile
>speed formulas to your space ship question....please do let us know what
>your answer is....not that I can do anything about testing it...<g>..but
>a bit off ooohh-aaaahh, is always interesting....seeya!
>--
> Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
> http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
> Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
> ICQ # - 13175100 / AOL - Keelyman
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187
>
>