- 25 Aug '09 18:56 / 2 editsr ——————>>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 - 25 Aug '09 20:19

I think it's along these lines here: (I'll check out your links in a minute)*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.

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 - 26 Aug '09 12:40

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.*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 - 26 Aug '09 18:25

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*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.**

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

Anyone here an astrophysicist? :->