Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby Chromium6 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:11 pm

This thread is to catalog all errors, mistakes, pretensions, mis-understandings, misconceptions of Miles Mathis and his works.

This thread is not intended to be an area to snipe, name-call or otherwise deride Miles Mathis as a writer. If you want to curse, snipe or "get-dirty" over Mathis -- please send a personal email on this board.

Nevertheless, there are several areas of Miles Mathis' work that does deserve careful scrutiny and criticism. That is what this thread is for.

==========================================

A few kick off areas for Mathis' complainers/correctors:

-Mixing of units of measure in calculations
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=11870
-Pi=4
The Extinction of π
by Miles Mathis
bye-bye π
Image
http://milesmathis.com/Pi2.html

------------
Have fun! :)
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby David » Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:51 am

I was under the impression that the Miles Mathis pi=4 theory fails to meet even a bare minimum scientific threshold and should be discussed elsewhere; possibly at the UFO, Bigfoot, and Crop Circle websites (assuming the theory can actually make it over the top of their extremely low hurdle).

The last time we discussed the pi=4 theory at this forum, the administrator locked the thread and made the following comment:

“I see no value in keeping this Miles Mathis topic alive. To derive the circumference of a circle by using (half) squares is, to say the least, unconventional in the extreme. To then redefine pi as a result ...”

“This thread will now be locked, please don't just start another in its place. This has nothing to do with EU.” -- Dave Smith (Forum Administrator)
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jun 05, 2014 5:15 am

With Pi all we have to do is measure a circle's circumference and divide by 4. If that number turns out to be exactly the diameter of the circle, then Miles is correct and Pi=4. If it doesn't then Miles is wrong and Pi is some other number.

All you have to do is grab a pan from the kitchen, turn it upside down and trace it onto a piece of paper. Once you have done that you can take a flexible measuring tape and measure the outside of the pan. Then you take the traced circle and fold it in half in two spots to find the midpoint (assuming the paper is mostly see through at close distances).

Measure the diameter of the circle. Multiplying that measurement by 4 should get you the diameter of the circle according to Miles.

If it doesn't then we can be sure Pi is not 4. Its really that simple. The cheapest experiment ever can falsify Miles Pi=4 argument.

David beat me to the punch!
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:12 pm

~

Isn't 2D extension/rotation being confused with 3D progression/spiraling here ?

seasmith
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby Chromium6 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:08 pm

David wrote:I was under the impression that the Miles Mathis pi=4 theory fails to meet even a bare minimum scientific threshold and should be discussed elsewhere; possibly at the UFO, Bigfoot, and Crop Circle websites (assuming the theory can actually make it over the top of their extremely low hurdle).

The last time we discussed the pi=4 theory at this forum, the administrator locked the thread and made the following comment:

“I see no value in keeping this Miles Mathis topic alive. To derive the circumference of a circle by using (half) squares is, to say the least, unconventional in the extreme. To then redefine pi as a result ...”

“This thread will now be locked, please don't just start another in its place. This has nothing to do with EU.” -- Dave Smith (Forum Administrator)


Kind of curious, David... what are your thoughts on these two papers?

A CORRECTION TO THE EQUATION
a = v2/r
(and a Refutation of Newton's Lemmae VI, VII & VIII)
http://milesmathis.com/avr.html

THE VIRIAL THEOREM IS FALSE
http://milesmathis.com/virial.html

Keep in mind the following preface on the PI paper:

First posted September 9, 2008
Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep π for that. So quit writing me nasty, uninformed letters.
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby David » Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:23 am

Chromium6,

Here is just one of the many glaring contradictions that can be found in those particular Mathis articles:

“It means that the radius is a velocity itself.”
–- http://milesmathis.com/pi.html

“The radius of the circle is obviously not a velocity; it is a distance.”
–- http://milesmathis.com/avr.html

Mathis has so many redefinitions that neither he, nor anyone else can keep track of them all; its turned into an inconsistent, jumbled mess.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby David » Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:56 am

Continuing:

The contradictions are trivial compared to the math errors. Here is the equation that Mathis develops in his article (http://milesmathis.com/avr.html)

a2 + 2ar = vo2

You don’t even need to study his derivation; just looking at the equation can tell that it’s wrong. He has acceleration squared on one side of the equation, and velocity squared on the other side. The units are hopelessly mismatched. Therefore, the equation is invalid.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby MosaicDave » Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:32 pm

David: Well! Though, I rather wish you wouldn't cast aspersions on things like Bigfoot, Crop Circles, and UFOs, by collecting Miles Mathis' musings into the same category as those... :)

Chromium6: As for me, the farthest I ever read into one of Miles Mathis' papers, was a little ways into one that he wrote about tides. I just remember it rapidly becoming totally obvious, that MM completely doesn't understand how the gravity of the Sun acts upon the oceans of the orbiting Earth. Just going from memory, I think he was trying to argue that if the conventional understandings of tides and gravity were valid, then there should be a giant bulge of high-tide water pointing in the direction of the Sun. Which of course is totally wrong, as the Oceans just orbit the Sun right along with the solid body of the Earth...

I think in his "a=v^/r" paper, right off the bat he starts to make this same blunder. Though I only clicked the link above and spent about half a minute going into the beginning of it, as I don't feel it's worth any of my time to try to produce any kind of analysis of it.

He is sort of good for a chuckle now and then, though! Actually he reminds me now, of whoever it was in Monty Python ("Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?") --- So... if she weighs as much as a duck... then, she must be made of wood... and therefore... A WITCH!

Fun aside, though, I've wondered if on the other hand, there may some cases where he's actually gotten something right. Now that I think of it, this might be an interesting thread topic in itself... It's very hard for me to go looking for such, though, without the feeling of wasting a lot of time...

--dc
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby Chromium6 » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:56 pm

David wrote:Chromium6,

Here is just one of the many glaring contradictions that can be found in those particular Mathis articles:

“It means that the radius is a velocity itself.”
–- http://milesmathis.com/pi.html

“The radius of the circle is obviously not a velocity; it is a distance.”
–- http://milesmathis.com/avr.html


Yes. Those are good ones. I guess there really is no Pi in the Sky?

========

Summation

We have discovered several important things.
1) Pi is a centripetal acceleration and has the dimensions of acceleration.
2) The circumference of any circle has the dimensions m2/s3, if written out in full.
3) If the radius is treated as a distance, then the circumference has the dimensions m2/s2.
4) Pi is not applicable to orbits or most other physical circles, since the tangential velocity is not equal to the radial velocity. There is no pi in the sky.
5) In orbits and all other circular motion v ≠ 2πr/t. Something may equal 2πr/t, but it isn't a velocity.
6) There is no such thing as orbital velocity. There is only tangential velocity. The curve described by an orbit is not a distance, nor is it a velocity. It has the dimensions m2/s3, just like the circumference.
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby David » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:47 am

The circumference of any circle has the dimensions m2/s3.


Of all the Mathis redefinitions, this is by far the strangest. He has taken the circumference of a circle (which is just the length of a curve), and given it units of m2/s3.

At best, it's nonsensical gibberish!
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby LAShaffer » Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:41 am

OH, come on now. His math can't possibly be any worse than the astronomer who originated semi-major axis cubed divided by time squared and thought it signified something, or the banker who added 4 pi squared to the same exponential ratio to come up with the nonsense called gravity. That kind of math makes you question a person's sanity.
LAShaffer
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:28 am

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:20 pm

LAShaffer wrote:OH, come on now. His math can't possibly be any worse than the astronomer who originated semi-major axis cubed divided by time squared and thought it signified something, or the banker who added 4 pi squared to the same exponential ratio to come up with the nonsense called gravity. That kind of math makes you question a person's sanity.


Hey read the beginning of this thread LAShaffer.
This thread is not intended to be an area to snipe, name-call or otherwise deride Miles Mathis as a writer. If you want to curse, snipe or "get-dirty" over Mathis -- please send a personal email on this board.



Actually here's an idiot banker that is ripping you off, LAShaffer with more than Pi=4...this is nonsense. Audit this math for "Scams" and ratios from hell. I question anyone's sanity that doesn't call out this crap.... :D :
"I’m Doing God’s Work"

Is it any wonder, then, that once, when asked about Goldman Sachs’ incredibly lucrative and yet highly controversial actions in stirring the pot of global finance, Mr. Loyd Blankfein stunningly retorted, "I’m doing God’s work."


As the world turns:

Image
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:03 pm

Does this need correction?
---------------------------------

After all that, we may be pretty sure that spin is not what caused the Explorer Anomaly. So we still have an experimental failure of about 33%. As I hinted above, the first thing we should have looked at is the E/M field. But, as I have shown in a series of other papers, even the E/M field is not strong enough to cause such a large gap. I have shown that the E/M field of the Earth is .009545m/s2, negative to gravity, which would cause a .1% change in g. But this change would not be apparent in any equations at NASA, since they are and always have been measuring a compound field. 9.81 is the correct value for this compound field, so their ignorance about its make-up cannot be a factor.

No unknown perturbations or tidal forces from the Moon can have caused a 33% failure either, since we would have seen these forces in other experiments. A directional perturbation like this must have caused predictable or post-dictable changes in the shape of the expected orbit as well, and this is not what we find. We do not find the rockets pushed toward or away from the Moon.

So what could cause such a large failure in such a simple experiment? We have to look at the math to tell. Although the rocket flew over 1/3 higher at apogee, the math shows "almost a 20% error", according to Hoagland1. I have scanned his math, and he appears to be right. The error in the Explorer propulsion equations is 19%. The orbital equation currently used is a=v2/r, where v = 2πr/t. Solving using the current value for π gives us a=39.5r/t2. Using my correction to π as well as my correction to the equation a=v2/r,* we get a=32r/t2. The difference between 39.5 and 32 is 19%. We have a match.

A close reader will say, "According to your theory, the circumference is 4 times the diameter in a kinematic situation. That means that any curve—including an orbit—must be larger than we previously thought. Shouldn't the rocket miss short and not long?" No, 32 is less than 39.5, so the acceleration in my correction is less than the acceleration in the old equations. That is, the centripetal acceleration is less than the engineers thought at the time, therefore the rocket must fly higher. This is not to say that the current value of 9.8 is wrong, it is just to say that relationship of 9.8 to the other numbers like radius and velocity and time was wrong.

http://milesmathis.com/pi4.html
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby David » Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:03 pm

Chromium6 wrote:Does this need correction?
---------------------------------
So what could cause such a large failure in such a simple experiment? We have to look at the math to tell. Although the rocket flew over 1/3 higher at apogee, the math shows "almost a 20% error", according to Hoagland. I have scanned his math, and he appears to be right.


Mathis actually used conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland as his sole source of data. No joke! Here is the link to the Hoagland article that Mathis used as evidence for the pi=4 theory:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

For those who are unfamiliar with Richard Hoagland, check this out:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland

This is just one of many Miles Mathis conspiracy theories: "NASA is hiding something". His most recent conspiracy theory (May 31, 2014) is that the Lincoln assassination never happened, it was faked:
http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:13 pm

David wrote:
Chromium6 wrote:Does this need correction?
---------------------------------
So what could cause such a large failure in such a simple experiment? We have to look at the math to tell. Although the rocket flew over 1/3 higher at apogee, the math shows "almost a 20% error", according to Hoagland. I have scanned his math, and he appears to be right.


Mathis actually used conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland as his sole source of data. No joke! Here is the link to the Hoagland article that Mathis used as evidence for the pi=4 theory:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

For those who are unfamiliar with Richard Hoagland, check this out:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland

This is just one of many Miles Mathis conspiracy theories: "NASA is hiding something". His most recent conspiracy theory (May 31, 2014) is that the Lincoln assassination never happened, it was faked:
http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf


As for Hoagland, that is probably where he first heard of the difference between the predicted and actual trajectories. Hoagland isn't more than just a wiki article on facts. I assume Mathis gave him credit for the observation and it check out with the wiki facts on it.

Well, I must say I wasn't aware of all of these conspiracy theories. Thanks David. Can't say I'm "on board" with these either.

But, wasn't the Iraq War a massive conspiracy as well? I mean talk about Judith Miller, the NY Times, Richard Spertzel and David Kelly, and of course, all the talk of weaponized, micronized anthrax and then you might get me looking over my shoulder too. But of course with over a million dead, mostly women and children, is it all just fools and puppets at play. And include with that large groups of people not really "clued" in? ;)

I mean most of Mathis' conspiracies are fairly personal points of views and harmless, right?
The overriding question, is whether his math is solid or not? Can his Charge Field theory and suppositions create a interferometry type weapon or even something perhaps similar to Ken Shoulders' powerful EVOs?
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest