# Can you decipher this one?

uzless
Science 25 Aug '09 18:56
1. uzless
The So Fist
25 Aug '09 18:562 edits
r ——————>>Exp (ì w t) ———->> S=r Exp (ì wt) Nahhas’ Equation
Orbit——–>> Orbit light sensing——>> Visual Orbit; Exp = Exponential
Particle —->> light sensing of moving objects———— >> Wave
Newton———>>light sensing———->> Quantum
Quantum = Newton x Visual Effects
Quantum – Newton = Relativistic = Optical Illusions
E (Energy by definition) = mv²/2 = mc²/2; if v = c
m = mass; v= speed; c= light speed; w= angular velocity; t= time
S = r Exp (ì w t) = r [cos (wt) + ì sin (wt)] Visual effects
P = visual velocity = change of visual location
P = d S/d t = v Exp (ì w t) + ì w r Exp (ì w t)
= (v + ì w r) Exp (ì w t) = v (1 + ì ) Exp (ì w t) = visual speed; v = wr
E (visual energy= what you see in lab) = m p²/2; replace v by p in E = mv²/2
= m p²/2 = m v²/2 (1 + ì ) ² Exp (2ì wt)
= mv²/2 (2ì ) [cosine (2wt) + ì sine (2wt)]
=ì mv² [1 - 2 sine² (wt) + 2 ì sine (wt) cosine (wt)];v = speed; c = light speed
wt = &#960;/2
E (visual) = ìmv² (1 – 2 + 0)
E (visual) = -ì mc² &#8801; mc² (absolute value;-ì = negative complex unit) If v = c
w t = &#960;/4
E (visual) = imv² [1-1 +&#7881;] =-mc²; v = c
wt =-&#960;/4+&#7881;ln2/2; 2&#7881; wt=-&#7881;&#960;/2 – ln2
Exp (2i wt) = Exp [-&#7881;&#960;/2] Exp [ln(1/2)]=[-&#7881; (1/2)]
E (visual) = imv² (-&#7881;/2) =1/2mc² v = c
Conclusion: E = mc² is the visual Illusion of E = mc²/2

PS: In case of E=mc² claims to be rest energy claims then
E=1/2m (m v + m’ r) ² = (1/2m) (m’ r) ²; v = 0
E = (1/2m) (mc) ²; m’ r =mc
E=mc²/2
2. PBE6
Bananarama
25 Aug '09 20:09
LOL no, but these guys tried:

http://hep.ucsb.edu/people/bmonreal/Null_Physics_Review.html
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html

That is some SERIOUS crackpot physics. I'm guessing this Witt guy found out the hard way that the brown acid wasn't so good. ðŸ™‚
3. uzless
The So Fist
25 Aug '09 20:19
Originally posted by PBE6
LOL no, but these guys tried:

http://hep.ucsb.edu/people/bmonreal/Null_Physics_Review.html
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html

That is some SERIOUS crackpot physics. I'm guessing this Witt guy found out the hard way that the brown acid wasn't so good. ðŸ™‚
I think it's along these lines here: (I'll check out your links in a minute)

According to Nahhas : “The problem in all of physics is measurements
when astronomers say space-time curvature caused the elliptical orbit of Planet mercury
to rotate I say NO space-time did not cause nothing because it does not exist
what you see is the effect called light aberrations we are not using a tape measure to
measure the orbit of mercury and this use of light reflected of mercury introduces visual
effects actual location r and visual location is S , r did not change.”
So he is seemingly saying it is only a visual effect for the change of ellipse. I can’t see
that reasoning. I would think it a real effect. Nahhas disagrees with space-time curvature
because he can model the same phenomenon by Newtonian Physics. Unfortunately
space-time curvature math model has taken a hold as far as I am concerned, so what we
have is two alternative viable models.
The essential part of Newtonian Physics different from General Relativity for the issue
we are dealing with in this article (there are other differences) is that Newtonian Physics
is based on Euclidean geometry and General Relativity is non-Euclidean geometry. Just
concentrating on that difference of geometries, and not other issues of light speed (et al.),
from pure mathematics both geometries are mathematically consistent. This in my
perspective means that both geometries can be used to form valid mathematical models
that can fit physical reality of observations.
i.e. both Euclidean mathematical model and a non-Euclidean mathematical model would
work for the physics of Mercury and other physics situations; as far as I am concerned.
Of course there are other issues such as although both theories use different geometries,
they might have mistakes in using their respective geometries which need correcting to
make their maths consistent.
From my understanding of Nahhas, I think he completely rejects spacetime geometry of
General Relativity. His view is that he can do the calculation without need of that
spacetime geometry so it is not needed. Whereas my view is you can probably do the
calculation either way, barring math mistakes.
Leaving the final word on this to Nahhas, according to Nahhas: “r did not change but its
measurement changes and it is S depending of the value of its speed compared to light
speed v/c.”

http://www.wbabin.net/science/anderton32.pdf
4. PBE6
Bananarama
25 Aug '09 20:43
Oops! I went here: http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/null-physics/ and found a review posted after the equations from joe nahhas, and thought that nahhas was a pseudonym for Terence Witt. However, it looks like they're different people. Same crackpot science, though.
5. 26 Aug '09 12:40
Originally posted by uzless
I think it's along these lines here: (I'll check out your links in a minute)

According to Nahhas : “The problem in all of physics is measurements
when astronomers say space-time curvature caused the elliptical orbit of Planet mercury
to rotate I say NO space-time did not cause nothing because it does not exist
what you see is the effect called light ...[text shortened]... ue of its speed compared to light
speed v/c.”

http://www.wbabin.net/science/anderton32.pdf
If all calculations could be done using Newtonian Theory, then why would we need the more complicated Relativity Theory? Just go with the simpler theory.
6. uzless
The So Fist
26 Aug '09 18:25
Originally posted by Melanerpes
If all calculations could be done using Newtonian Theory, then why would we need the more complicated Relativity Theory? Just go with the simpler theory.
If i understand it correctly, that's exactly what Nahhas' is saying, as outlined in the calc for the orbit of mercury. I find the E=mc2 revision at the bottom interesting

I've also heard that nahhas' equation was disproved (or at least disputed) but I can't find a link.

Anyone here an astrophysicist? :->
7. 26 Aug '09 19:071 edit
The formulaes can be seen at http://physics.about.com/b/2008/06/21/relativity-4-engineers.htm
8. uzless
The So Fist
26 Aug '09 19:21
Originally posted by FabianFnas
The formulaes can be seen at http://physics.about.com/b/2008/06/21/relativity-4-engineers.htm
ok, but there is no discussion about it.
9. 26 Aug '09 19:48
Originally posted by uzless
ok, but there is no discussion about it.
Yes, I know, but I have problem with deciphering
wt =-&#960;/4+&#7881;ln2/2; 2&#7881; wt=-&#7881;&#960;/2 – ln2
compared with the original text seen in the link.