Comments on: AAAS Report #5: Science Under Attack

By: joe nahhas

joe nahhas — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:23:52 +0000

Kepler (demolish) Vs Einstein’s

Ending Einstein’s space jail of time in 2009 that led to fraud Symbol E=mc²

Areal velocity is constant: r² θ’ =h Kepler’s Law

h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
r² θ’= h = S² w’

S = r exp (ỉ wt); h = [r² Exp (2iwt)] w’=r²θ’
w’ = (θ’) exp [-2(i wt)]

w’= (h/r²) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = (h/r²) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)]
w’ = w’(x) + ỉ w’(y) ; w’(x) = (h/r²) [ 1- 2sine² (wt)]

Δ w’= w’(x) – (h/r²) = – 2(h/r²) sine² (wt) = – 2(h/r²) (v/c) ² v/c=sine wt
(h/ r²)(Perihelion/Periastron)= [2πa.a√ (1-ε²)]/Ta² (1-ε) ²= [2π√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²
Δ w’ = [w'(x) – h/r²] = -4π {[√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ² radian per second

{x [180/π;degrees]x[100years=36526days;century]x[3600;seconds in degree]
Δ w” = (-720×36526x3600/T) {[√ (1-ε²]/(1-ε)²} (v/c)² seconds of arc per century

This Kepler’s Equation solves all the problems Einstein and all physicists could not solve
DI Her Binary starts systems

The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 – ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²- –.) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4) v=√ [G m M / (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m<

Advance of Perihelion of mercury.

G=6.673x10^-11; M=2x10^30kg; m=.32x10^24kg
ε = 0.206; T=88days; c = 299792.458 km/sec; a = 58.2km/sec

Calculations yields:
v =48.14km/sec; [√ (1- ε²)] (1-ε) ² = 1.552
Δ w”= (-720x36526x3600/88) x (1.552) (48.14/299792)²=43.0”/century

Conclusions: The 43" seconds of arc of advance of perihelion of Planet Mercury (General relativity) is given by Kepler's equation better than all of Published papers of Einstein. Kepler's Equation can solve Einstein's nemesis DI Her Binary stars motion and all the other dozens of stars motions posted for past 40 years on NASA website SAO/NASA as unsolved by any physics

Anyone dare to prove me wrong?

=mc²/2
2009 is the end of Einstein's space-jail of time and Fraud symbol E=mc²
Joenahhas1958@yahoo.com
Time is not a structure like space to allow space-to time-back to space jumping claimed by Physicists regardless of what physicists have to say about it because Physics is a business and not necessarily science or scientific and like every business it comes with fraud and fraud is Einstein’s space-time (x, y, z, it) continuum that led to fraud symbol E=mc² and yes I am saying that 109 years of Nobel prize winners physics and physicists are all wrong and space-time physics is based on scientific fraud. When “results” expected and “No” discovery, Physicists rigged Physics for grant money since the start of the industrial revolution. Physics today is at least 51 % fraud!
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 joenahhas1958@yahoo.com. All rights reserved.
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

By: David

David — Fri, 25 May 2007 21:06:56 +0000

It doesn’t matter what you teach the kids. Most people are idiots. You can teach them about science all you want, they will still be idiots. Culture is to blame.

By: Bryan’s Web (.net) » Blog Archive » Science and… The Future

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:36:43 +0000

[...] Science and… The Future For the past 5 and a half years, scientific research – once a trademark of America; an entire category of our collective knowledge in which we were the undisputed leader, and one (if no one else, I will) might even say the crowning achieviement of human civilization, has all but reversed its progress in this country. Where are the advances that we were promised in this new, 21st century? Why have we not lived up to the potential that we have proven time and time again we possess? The blame lies squarely with the current George W. Bush administration, his advisor Karl Rove, and through them the rest of the Republican Party that decide to toe the party line instead of doing what most – or at least some – of them know to be right. Statistically, not every Republican candidate can feel so anti-science, but for some reason it gets them votes, so they stick with what “works”. And they get away with it all by cloaking it in a veil of Religion and homespun, aw-shucks, this is what mah momma thought sayings that appeal to both the less intellectual among us (the people that would rather believe something told to them rather than think about it themselves), and to the religiously devout. Just to be clear here, my problem isn’t with Religion, it’s with what appealing to peoples’ religious beliefs has blinded them to. For instance, take these examples: One group of people in this country believe that we never walked on the moon. Another group believes that the Earth has only been around for about 6,000 years. To anybody with any common sense, both claims seem ludicrous since there’s more than ample scientific evidence to prove that both theories are divergent with history. However! The difference in these theories is that the latter claim is shrouded in religious dogma, which somehow makes invisible the mountain (literally! Sorry… Geology joke) of available empirical evidence. Thus, the second group of voters with misplaced beliefs is much larger. In case you missed that link up there, it mentions that of 34 countries, we rank 33rd in accepting evolution. Right above Turkey. It’s the same thing with evolution, and Stem Cell research, as it is with the two examples that I gave above- George Bush’s Republicans are twisting people’s faith and blinding them to scientific fact. Why argue so vehemently that the destruction of embryos in the name of healing is morally unacceptable, while letting those same embryos be destroyed with nothing learned or gained is fine? Because that is the debate the Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove have laid out, and like a horse pulling a carriage the blinders allow the voters to look in no other direction. In a similar vein to the group of people that believe the Moon landings were faked, there is a group of people that believe that the 9/11 attacks were formulated by our own government. I am certainly not one of those people, but I will note that the event did work in George Bush’s favor, winning him a second term and allowing him to execute his, as we now know pre-planned Iraq invasion. Regime change? I think it’s time for one here at home. I’d stop there, because that last statement made a powerful point, but I’d like to continue for a bit longer. What are the consequences for continuing down our current path? Toward the division of Red States and Blue? I’d like to point out that historically, what unites a people better than anything else is a common enemy or threat. Terrorism, our only current threat (and the only one for the forseeable future), is, to put it plainly, not big enough. As much as we proclaim “We’re not afraid of Terrorists”, and then institute all deal of measures like we are afraid- our proclamations are true. Nobody in the United States has a fear of Terrorists storming our shores, of Terrorists toppling our government, or of Terrorists turning us into their puppets. During the Cold War, these were the fears. Back then, it was not “Should we research” it was “Do the research, here’s the money, and make sure you beat those Commie bastards to the punch”. And so our parties centered on the choices of Big Government vs. Small Government, both getting basically the same job done, but just determining the best way. After all, both parties were American, inclusively. Parts of a whole. Variations on a capitalist theme, as it were. But those days of cold war and Nuclear Holocaust only half an hour away have now left our collective memory, and it’s my belief that so have our petty arguments over Big vs. Small government. Do both parties still take positions on those cold-war arguments? Of course, but those are not the issues driving elections- they’re not the issues that my generation cares about, and they won’t be again for some time, should things continue the way they are now. Now we’re seeing Republican vs. Democrat, where both parties are American, exclusively. The other party? Well, I don’t know what they are, but they’re certainly Un-American! If things continue down their current path, I can forsee a secession of state(s) within 30-50 years. Will there be fighting? A civil war? Probably not. Don’t believe me? Let’s look at our past. As a new country, we had enemies everywhere. Indians, out west. European Colonies all around us. European countries themselves, some of which we had just pissed off by saying that they couldn’t enforce their views on us. (Sound familiar?) So we expanded, and though we had our spats, we mostly made nice with the europeans, and did some horrible things to the Native Americans, but really, nobody was afraid that they’d topple our government (Sound familiar?). Eventually (about 30-50 years later…) those threats, for the most part (we fought Mexicans along the border in Texas.Â Sound familiar?), went away, and all we had left to do was talk amongst ourselves. And what did the issues turn to? Slavery. President Lincoln (the guy from the penny ) “did not propose federal laws making slavery unlawful where it already existed“, but opposed starting any new slavery (Stem Cells… Sound familiar?), and that was Slavery, not Medicine.Â And the South saw this as an affront to their values, because “mah pah says slavery’s okay” (Sound familiar?).Â Obviously, I worded some of those in ways to make a point, but I believe that there could be some merit to this theory, unless the course of politics changes relatively soon.Â I’ll leave this long post with a few figures, and a video.Â US Deaths in Operation Desert Storm: 147.Â US Deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan): 184.Â US Deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom: 2,262. [...]

By: anon

anon — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:38:17 +0000

A huge part of the problem is that undergraduates get little more than a basic introduction to science.

If high school teachers were required to have at least a master’s degree level education in biology, they might understand how important evolution is to modern biological science and wouldn’t be so easily swayed by Christian fundamentalist schoolboards.

By: RAD

RAD — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:41:59 +0000

Sure seems like alot of the worlds problems boil down to what is or is not happening in the home. this may never change.

By: Nigel Depledge

Nigel Depledge — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:11:35 +0000

There are some very interesting comments here.

Hawkeye, you said:
“We have to make the challenge of it.appealing first.”

What we need is a leader who can make the challenge appealing. Remember Kennedy’s speech when he said “… We choose to go to the Moon and to do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…”

We choose to do it because it is hard.

It seems to me that this message is the way to get people switched on to science.

Having said that, I don’t know how best to disseminate it. Science has no leader. The US has a leader who doesn’t give two hoots for science (anyone remember the scientists who said the levees at Nawlins wouldn’t stand a cat 5 hurricane?). Schoolteachers often have to deal with apathetic students who do not receive the right encouragement outside of school.

Hmmm…

By: beskeptigal

beskeptigal — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:27:38 +0000

Hawkeye, you and many others don’t buy my argument or at least that’s what I think you are saying. To you and the rest I say, test your hypothesis.

“I think you *have* to argue that ID isnâ€™t science, for the very reasons I pointed out.” (Hawkeye)

Reasons are nice, ideals are nice, but *results* would be nicer in this case. Actually I am not so worried about evolution in the long run. There aren’t many flat Earthers around these days. I have no doubt when genetic research enters the common knowledge stream, ID will fade away. But the problem is much much bigger than ID and evolution.

The problem is billions of dollars spent on worthless medical remedies, attraction to astrology and the occult as if they were real phenomenon instead of curiosities, the ease with which political leaders use propaganda techniques effectively, and though some don’t want to include religion, the attraction to nonsensical religious beliefs that result in wars and persecution of people.

I’ll be happy to stick to the ‘ID isn’t science’ theme if you can show some study that provides evidence such an approach is effective in the ID vs evolution debates. I think experience offers enough data to say it isn’t an effective approach. And experience also provides substantial data that the straw man of “fairness” in science is working in the ID vs evolution debate. I don’t expect anyone to toss out teaching the fundamentals of what is science. Just put it aside in the ID vs evolution debates.

Recognize when you are repeating yourself with no results. There’s a time to repeat yourself, in different words perhaps, or perhaps when you know your hypothesis is right and it has yet to be accepted. But also recognize when repeating yourself has not achieved its purpose and isn’t likely to anytime soon. If you lead that horse to water and it fails to drink, it might be a good idea to find out why. It may be that there is something in the way you haven’t seen.