1. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    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 = π/2
    E (visual) = ìmv² (1 – 2 + 0)
    E (visual) = -ì mc² ≡ mc² (absolute value;-ì = negative complex unit) If v = c
    w t = π/4
    E (visual) = imv² [1-1 +ỉ] =-mc²; v = c
    wt =-π/4+ỉln2/2; 2ỉ wt=-ỉπ/2 – ln2
    Exp (2i wt) = Exp [-ỉπ/2] Exp [ln(1/2)]=[-ỉ (1/2)]
    E (visual) = imv² (-ỉ/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. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    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. 🙂
  3. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    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. 🙂
    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. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    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. Joined
    08 Oct '08
    Moves
    5542
    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. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    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. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    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. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    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. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    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 =-π/4+ỉln2/2; 2ỉ wt=-ỉπ/2 – ln2
    compared with the original text seen in the link.
Back to Top