View source for Relativity Failures 2006: The Case of NV CMa Binary Stars

{{Infobox paper
| title = Relativity Failures 2006: The Case of NV CMa Binary Stars
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_2592.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[Joe Alexander Nahhas]]
| keywords = [[Binary]], [[stars]], [[relativity]], [[apsidal]], [[motion]], [[NV. Canis]], [[Majoris]], [[Mercury]], [[Venus]], [[precession.perihelion]], [[period]], [[formula]]
| published = 2006
| num_pages = 8
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_2592.pdf here]

==Abstract==

This ia another Binary star system&nbsp;in contradicitons&nbsp;with relativity theory proving that not only relativity theory is wrong but relativity theory is stupidity itself because time is not a structure to allow space - to time - back to space jumping regardless what fortune hunters Nobel prize winners have/had to say about.

==Overview==

This eight-page paper, headed by its author "Einstein's Relativity Coffin nail # 9", is one instalment in [[Joe Alexander Nahhas]]'s long series applying what he calls '''real time physics''' to orbital motion. Its target is the '''apsidal motion''' of close binary stars — the slow rotation of the line of apses — which has long been used as a test of [[General Relativity|general relativity]] alongside tidal and rotational distortion terms. Nahhas's claim is that the effect is not a real rotation of the orbit at all but a '''visual effect''': "projected light aberrations visual effects along the line of sight of moving objects applied to the angular velocity at Apses."

The organising idea is that a measurement is never simultaneous with the event measured. Nahhas writes this as a chain of identities — "Measurement time = event time + time delays", "Experiment = theory + corrections", "Real time physics = event time physics + delay time physics" — and takes the consequence to be that time is "a scale and not a dimension", so that the space-time framework of [[Relativity|relativity]] is unnecessary. He states the position bluntly, holding that the physics of the past 350 years "is at least 51 % wrong" and modern physics "at least 88.88 % silly".

The technical content is a single closed-form formula for the rate of apsidal or perihelion advance in terms of the orbital and spin velocities of the bodies involved, applied here to '''NV Canis Majoris''' and, as calibration, to Mercury and Venus.

==The argument==

===Real time universal mechanics===

Nahhas begins not from a force law but from what he calls the '''state''' of an object, the product of its mass and its location:

: ''S'' = ''m'' ''r''

The first time derivative is a "total moment" ''P'' = ''m'' ''v'' + ''m''&prime; ''r'', which allows the mass itself to change, and the second derivative is the "total force"

: ''F'' = ''m'' &gamma; + 2''m''&prime;''v'' + ''m''&Prime; ''r''

Written in polar coordinates and set equal to Newton's inverse-square attraction, this yields two equations, both derived in the paper step by step: a radial equation d&sup2;(''mr'')/d''t''&sup2; &minus; (''mr'')&theta;&prime;&sup2; = &minus;''GmM''/''r''&sup2;, and a central-force law d(''m''&sup2;''r''&sup2;&theta;&prime;)/d''t'' = 0.

===The time-dependent factor===

The distinctive move is in solving the conserved-quantity equation. Differentiating ''m''&sup2;''r''&sup2;&theta;&prime; = constant and dividing through gives

: 2(''m''&prime;/''m'') + 2(''r''&prime;/''r'') + &theta;&Prime;/&theta;&prime; = 0

Nahhas then posits that this "will have a solution" in which each term is a complex constant, ''m''&prime;/''m'' = &lambda;(''m'') + i&omega;(''m'') and ''r''&prime;/''r'' = &lambda;(''r'') + i&omega;(''r''). Integrating gives mass and radius each as a purely spatial part times an exponential time part:

: ''m'' = ''m''(&theta;, 0) e<sup>[&lambda;(''m'') + i&omega;(''m'')]''t''</sup>
: ''r''(&theta;, ''t'') = [''a''(1 &minus; &epsilon;&sup2;)/(1 + &epsilon; cos &theta;)] e<sup>[&lambda;(''r'') + i&omega;(''r'')]''t''</sup>

The spatial factor is recovered by the usual substitution ''u'' = 1/''mr'', returning the ellipse ''r''(&theta;, 0) = ''a''(1 &minus; &epsilon;&sup2;)/(1 + &epsilon; cos &theta;). Nahhas calls the second expression "Newton's time dependent equation that is missed for 350 years".

For fixed mass and fixed orbit (&lambda; &asymp; 0) the exponential is purely oscillatory. Expanding it and taking the real part of the change in angular velocity gives

: ''W''(cal) = &minus;4&pi;[&radic;(1 &minus; &epsilon;&sup2;)]/''T''(1 &minus; &epsilon;)&sup2; &middot; sin&sup2;[&omega;(''m'')''t'' + &omega;(''r'')''t'']

===Identifying the phase with velocity===

To turn this into an observable, Nahhas identifies the accumulated phases with aberration angles built from the spin and orbital velocities: ''v''&deg;/''c'' = tan &omega;(''m'')''T''&deg; and ''v''*/''c'' = tan &omega;(''r'')''T''*, where ''T''&deg; is the spin period and ''T''* the orbital period. Substituting, converting to degrees and to a century of 36 526 days gives the paper's central result:

: ''W''&deg;(ob) = (&minus;720 &times; 36526/''T''<sub>days</sub>) {[&radic;(1 &minus; &epsilon;&sup2;)]/(1 &minus; &epsilon;)&sup2;} sin&sup2;{tan<sup>&minus;1</sup>[(''v''&deg;/''c'' + ''v''*/''c'')/(1 &minus; ''v''&deg;''v''*/''c''&sup2;)]} degrees per 100 years

Two successive small-velocity approximations — dropping the ''v''&deg;''v''*/''c''&sup2; term, then replacing sin tan<sup>&minus;1</sup>''x'' by ''x'' — reduce this to the working formula

: ''W''&deg;(ob) = (&minus;720 &times; 36526/''T''<sub>days</sub>) {[&radic;(1 &minus; &epsilon;&sup2;)]/(1 &minus; &epsilon;)&sup2;} [(''v''&deg; + ''v''*)/''c'']&sup2;

which the paper describes as "the equation that gives the correct apsidal motion rates". Orbital velocities are taken from ''v'' = &radic;[''GM''&sup2;/(''m'' + ''M'')''a''(1 &minus; &epsilon;&sup2;/4)], using the approximate ellipse circumference 2&pi;''a''(1 &minus; &epsilon;&sup2;/4).

===Calibration on Mercury and Venus===

Before the binary, the same formula is applied to the solar system with the extra factor 3600 to give arcseconds. For Mercury (''T'' = 88 days, &epsilon; = 0.206, ''v''* = 48.14 km/s, ''v''&deg; taken as 2 m/s) the paper obtains 43.0 arcseconds per century — the classical anomaly — "explained as 'apparent' without the use of fictional forces or fictional universe of space-time confusions of physics of relativity". For Venus, with ''v''* = 41.64 km/s, it obtains 8.2 arcseconds per century against a quoted observed 8.4.

===NV Canis Majoris===

The binary calculation uses ''T'' = 1.885159 days, &epsilon; = 0, orbital velocities ''v''*(p) = 128.55 km/s and ''v''*(s) = 130.87 km/s, and spin velocities ''v''&deg;(p) = 51.7 km/s and ''v''&deg;(s) = 52.4 km/s. Because each star may spin and orbit clockwise or counter-clockwise as seen from above, Nahhas lays out a sixteen-cell table of sign combinations for the spin and orbital contributions, remarking that "there are many combinations of velocity additions and subtractions and one combination will give the right answer". For NV CMa he takes the fully additive case:

: ''v''* = 259.42 km/s, ''v''&deg; = 104.1 km/s, total 363.52 km/s

giving

: ''W''&deg;(ob) = (&minus;720 &times; 36526/1.885159)(1)(363.52/300000)&sup2; = 20.4833&deg; per century

and therefore an apsidal period ''U'' = 360&deg; / 0.20483&deg; per year = '''1757.5 years'''. The stellar data are credited to the SAO/NASA abstract service entry "Absolute dimensions NV CMa" by Kaluzny, Pych, Rucinski and Thompson.

==Assessment==

What is genuinely attractive here is the economy of the proposal. A single algebraic expression, containing no adjustable constant beyond measured orbital and spin speeds, is offered for both planetary perihelion advance and stellar apsidal motion, and it lands close to the right value in the two solar-system cases where the answer is independently known. The underlying instinct — that some part of what is recorded as orbital precession might be a light-propagation or aberration artefact of viewing a fast-moving system from far away — is a legitimate question, and it is put here in a form concrete enough to be checked.

The difficulties are serious, and several are visible in the paper's own numbers.

The '''derivation is not closed'''. The factor e<sup>[&lambda; + i&omega;]''t''</sup> is introduced as an ansatz — "this equation will have a solution" — rather than obtained from the dynamics, and the constants &omega;(''m'') and &omega;(''r'') are afterwards ''identified'' with aberration angles by assertion, with no propagation argument connecting them. Nothing in the Newtonian two-body problem requires the mass to oscillate exponentially in time, and the step from a complex angular frequency to an observed viewing angle is the one on which the entire result rests.

The '''NV CMa figures are internally inconsistent'''. The data line gives &epsilon; = 0 and simultaneously [&radic;(1 &minus; &epsilon;&sup2;)]/(1 &minus; &epsilon;)&sup2; = 3.33181, though that expression equals exactly 1 when &epsilon; = 0; the arithmetic that follows uses 1. More fundamentally, apsidal motion is the rotation of the line of apses, which does not exist for a strictly circular orbit, so a calculation that sets &epsilon; = 0 has no apsides to rotate. The formula also carries an explicit minus sign throughout while the results are reported as positive rates.

The '''choice of sign combination is free'''. With sixteen cells in the table and the instruction that one of them "will give the right answer", the scheme has wide latitude in the value it can produce; the paper does not independently establish the spin and orbital senses of the two components from observation. And while the Mercury and Venus numbers are checked against known values, '''no observed apsidal period for NV CMa is quoted''' for comparison with the 1757.5-year figure, so the paper's title case is left untested within the paper itself.

Finally, the argument engages only part of the conventional account. Apsidal motion in close binaries is normally attributed mainly to tidal and rotational distortion of the component stars, computed from their internal density concentration, with the relativistic term a comparatively small addition; a "relativity failure" argument addresses only that smaller term and would still have to account for the classical one. Readers should also note that much of the paper's weight is rhetorical — including a passage calling "space-time physicists" incompetent liars — and that the polemic does not fill the gaps above.

==See also==

* [[Joe Alexander Nahhas]]
* [[1997 General Relativity Failures: The Case of SW Canis Majoris Binary Stars Systems]]
* [[2008 General Relativity Failures: The Case of V731 Cep Binary Stars Motion Puzzle Solution Without Rigging]]
* [[General Relativity]]
* [[Aberration]]

[[Category:Scientific Paper|relativity failures case nv cma binary stars]]

[[Category:Relativity|relativity failures case nv cma binary stars]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Gravity]]