Why Miles Mathis is wrong!

[David]

Photons do collide all the time, but because they are the same size, they normally don’t cause much slowing. The odds of a direct hit are very small. Indirect hits cause spin, not slowing. So collisions do cause all the spins, without much slowing. Of course direct hits do happen, but these hits do not cause annihilation. They cause temporary stoppage of both photons. Stopped photons are sitting ducks: their odds of direct collision go way up. So they get re-boosted by other photons and eventually reach c again. The small fraction of photons that get stopped simply lowers the average speed of all the photons. This would mean that c is the average speed, not the maximum speed. So it is possible, according to this theory of collision that newly emitted photons may be going slightly over c for a short time, until they suffer a number of collisions.

http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

The above paragraph contains two astonishing claims.

First, that “newly emitted photons” have superluminal velocities. That is, photons have initial velocities which exceed the value of c; until they are slowed down by collisions with other photons. As you must be aware, that is in stark contrast to Einstein’s second postulate of Special Relativity:

“As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”

And second, Mathis claims that it is possible to bring a photon to a complete stop:

“Of course direct hits do happen, but these hits do not cause annihilation. They cause temporary stoppage of both photons.”

So according to Mathis, photons can basically have velocities which range anywhere from zero, up to and including speeds which exceed c. However, Mathis then (in a different article) completely contradicts himself, and argues the opposite viewpoint; in this case, that photons can “never be slowed, much less stopped”:

Photons are always moving, and they are never slowed, much less stopped. They can only be channeled.

http://milesmathis.com/poll.pdf

It’s left up to the reader to try and sort out, or make sense of this glaring contradiction; likewise with all the other myriad discrepancies that are ubiquitous throughout the Mathis theories.

[bill miller]

Good one! How did we miss it? I'll tell you how we missed it: Mathis writes so many long and wordy essays, no one — not even himself — can be expected to keep his claims straight. Whereas mainstream physics is built on a framework of self-consistent principles (the constancy of the speed of light, equivalence of matter & energy as well as acceleration & gravitation, and the validity of these principles in all possible frames of reference), Mathis literally makes stuff up as he goes along, with no regard to whether a claim violates a previous claim. And he hopes you won't notice.

As far as I can tell, the only principles that Mathis consistently holds are that pi = 4, that very small intervals or distances "logically" cannot exist (or be of use in mathematics), and that particles behave exactly like spinning, mechanically colliding billiard balls, with the additional stipulation that under no circumstances can actual spinning, mechanically colliding billiard balls be made to behave in that manner!

It's a tough life being a Miles Mathis apologist....

[David]

The average distance of Mercury from the Earth is 1 AU.

http://milesmathis.com/merc.html

Is the average distance between Mercury and the Earth 1 AU, as Mathis claims? Well, let's take a look at the available data. According to Wikipedia:

“Mercury is an average distance of 77 million km from Earth. The precise distance between the two planets depends on where they are in their respective orbits.

“An astronomical unit (abbreviated AU) is a unit of length, roughly the distance from the Earth to the Sun. However, that distance varies as the Earth orbits the Sun, from a maximum (aphelion) to a minimum (perihelion) and back again once a year. Originally, each distance was measured through observation, and the AU was defined as their average, half the sum of the maximum and minimum, making the unit a kind of medium measure for Earth-to-Sun distance. It is now defined as exactly 149597870700 metres (about 150 million km).”

Now if we compare the two values (77 million km vs. 150 million km), Mathis is only off by 95%. But for Mathis, that’s about par for the course; very close to his well established handicap.

[Chromium6]

The average distance of Mercury from the Earth is 1 AU.

http://milesmathis.com/merc.html

Is the average distance between Mercury and the Earth 1 AU, as Mathis claims? Well, let's take a look at the available data. According to Wikipedia:

“Mercury is an average distance of 77 million km from Earth. The precise distance between the two planets depends on where they are in their respective orbits.

“An astronomical unit (abbreviated AU) is a unit of length, roughly the distance from the Earth to the Sun. However, that distance varies as the Earth orbits the Sun, from a maximum (aphelion) to a minimum (perihelion) and back again once a year. Originally, each distance was measured through observation, and the AU was defined as their average, half the sum of the maximum and minimum, making the unit a kind of medium measure for Earth-to-Sun distance. It is now defined as exactly 149597870700 metres (about 150 million km).”

Now if we compare the two values (77 million km vs. 150 million km), Mathis is only off by 95%. But for Mathis, that’s about par for the course; very close to his well established handicap.

The average AU from Earth to Mercury is 1, isn't it? This is when considering distances between all points in the orbit of each planet around the Sun. Earth to Sun is 1 AU and Mercury to Sun is .39 AU... you basically add to or subtract from 1 AU as Mercury orbits the Sun further from/closer to the Earth. If I'm missing something obvious, please correct.
---------
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/charchart.cfm

The eccentricity of an orbit is a measurement of how much the orbit deviates from a circular shape. If an orbit is a perfect circle, it has an eccentricity of zero, and that number increases with an increase in eccentricity. Mercury has an eccentricity of .21. Its orbit ranges from 46 million kilometers at the closest point to the Sun to 70 million kilometers at the farthest point. The closest point to the Sun in an orbit is called the perihelion, and the farthest point is the aphelion. Mercury is the fastest planet to orbit the Sun at approximately Earth 88 days.

[David]

Correction:

I gave Wikipedia as the source for this quote:

“Mercury is an average distance of 77 million km from Earth. The precise distance between the two planets depends on where they are in their respective orbits.”

However, Wikipedia is not the source of that quote. The source of the quote is the California Institute of Technology. If you Google “what is the average distance between the Earth and Mercury”, the above quote will be displayed.

But upon further review, it would appear that Cal Tech is the one who has their data wrong. Several other websites indicate that 77 million km is NOT the "average distance" (as Cal Tech claims), but rather the "closest distance" between the Earth and Mercury. The average distance between Mercury and the Earth is approximately 1 AU (150 million km), in total agreement with the Mathis assertion.

Therefore, I extend my sincere apology to Mr. Mathis for inadvertently slandering his already tainted reputation.

[David]

Notice how these guys almost always work in pairs. They always show up saying the same things. They have to work from a script, because it is clear they haven't read my papers past the titles. We have never seen them address any line of math or any central part of my theories, because they simply aren't able to.

These guys claim I never make predictions, although of course that is another bold lie. I will make one here. Based on past performance, I predict the hired trolls will never make a substantive argument. They simply aren't able to.

Never once have we seen these guys address my destruction of a specific equation or proof, because they know that—as a matter of debate—that would be inefficient. It would also be ineffectual, since the mainstream equations and proofs are indefensible. No, they always attack me as directly and viciously as they can—which, as we have seen, isn't much. If they could easily find weak spots in my math or theory, they would attack there; but since they can't, they attack my hair or my art or my ballet or my ego or my non-physics papers. The fact that they attack those spots means they can't find points of easy attack in my papers. But while I am well-armored, these guys have their throats bared and their genitals waving in the breeze. They are all bluff.

“The Wool Spinners” (Sept. 25, 2014)
http://milesmathis.com/crank3.pdf

We know that Mathis is following this thread; he even mentions the Thunderbolts Forum in the above article, and also in his “My Opposition” article (http://milesmathis.com/david.html).

This thread has been running for nearly four months now. There have been literally dozens of specific and detailed Mathis errors (mostly mathematical), which have been posted and discussed.

The only one “working from a script” is Mathis. He just keeps repeating the same old tired, worn-out harangue: “it is clear they haven’t read my papers past the titles”.

[bill miller]

The average distance between Mercury and the Earth is approximately 1 AU (150 million km), in total agreement with the Mathis assertion.

Generally, when one party concedes points and admits their errors, it's an indication that that party is arguing fairly. When the opposing party never concedes anything and never admits any error, never says "You have a point there," it's an indication of intellectual dishonesty.

You would think when Mathis says that any number minus zero equals infinity, and when this is pointed out in this thread, that one of his main apologists would say, "Huh, yeah, that's obviously absurd." But they don't. They look the other way. I don't blame them, really; it's an incredibly embarrassing statement.

But this behavior is seen in conspiracy-theory and creationist debates all the time. The M.O. of the fringe, intellectually dishonest position is always the same: Besiege the reader with walls of text and flabby sophistry, and when a valid point is made, ignore and pivot. Operate solely on bravado and assuredness of one's own correctness, with an absolute and total denial that the opposition has made any valid points whatsoever.

We have never seen them address any line of math or any central part of my theories because they simply aren't able to.
“The Wool Spinners” (Sept. 25, 2014)
http://milesmathis.com/crank3.pdf

These guys can't even land a good punch. I hurt them and their heroes over and over, and they can't find a way to lay a glove on me.
"My Opposition" (update Aug. 2, 2013)
http://milesmathis.com/david.html

Exactly.

[Sparky]

Operate solely on bravado and assuredness of one's own correctness, with an absolute and total denial that the opposition has made any valid points whatsoever.

That seems to be the general way MM's followers operate.

[David]

At Wikipedia, it says,

"Substituting 0 for h in the difference quotient causes division by zero, so the slope of the tangent line cannot be found directly. Instead, define Q(h) to be the difference quotient as a function of h:

"Q(h) = lim h→0 [f(a +h) – f(a)] / h

"Q(h) is the slope of the secant line between (a, ƒ(a)) and (a + h, ƒ(a + h)). If ƒ is a continuous function, meaning that its graph is an unbroken curve with no gaps, then Q is a continuous function away from the point h = 0. If the limit limh→0Q(h) exists, meaning that there is a way of choosing a value for Q(0) which makes the graph of Q a continuous function, then the function ƒ is differentiable at the point a, and its derivative at a equals Q(0)."

This is amazing, because it means that in these equations, you have to go to zero twice. First, you go to zero to find the first equation. Then, because you can't go to zero, you create a second function you can push in the gap. You fudge your fudge. You push your push.

http://milesmathis.com/expon.html

The slope of the secant line doesn't require a limit. Limits are only required for computing the slope of tangent lines; not secant lines. So why is there a limit in the above equation (highlighted above)? Did Wikipedia get it wrong?

Well, actually no. Mathis put the limit there himself. It's pure fabrication. He deliberately misquoted Wikipedia so he could use it in his flawed argument: "you have to go to zero twice". A truly disgraceful display of dishonesty; the man has no shame.

Here is the actual quote from Wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative

[David]

Wikipedia tells us that “the derivative of velocity with respect to time is the acceleration,” but that is simply false.

You can't differentiate a velocity into an acceleration.

In no case can you differentiate a velocity into an acceleration.

And yet we are told that we differentiate a velocity to find an acceleration. No wonder physics and math are completely compromised.

http://milesmathis.com/expon.html

I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for Mathis. He has been at this for 10 years now, and he still can’t comprehend introductory physics. Well, hang in there Mr. Mathis; year 11 just might be the year you wake to the light of day.

[David]

My method applies to all of calculus and all functions, not just differentials or polynomials. It applies to trig functions, logarithms, integrals, and so on.

However, I now see, years later, that I was mistaken in assuming that my initial paper would penetrate into the mathematical community. It has been turned down for publication in all the top forums, for what I think are political reasons.

http://milesmathis.com/trig.html

The primary reason your calculus paper was turned down for publication is because it doesn’t live up to the stated claim: “my method applies to all of calculus and all functions, not just differentials or polynomials. It applies to trig functions, logarithms, integrals, and so on."

In truth, your method of differentiation applies to polynomials only. And it’s the over-the-top exaggerated claims that make the paper un-publishable.

[David]

Mathis attempts to prove the derivatives of sine and cosine with simple algebra, but I am afraid
he messed up his variables in the last steps.

Trigonometric and Exponential Derivatives by Michael Howell
http://milesmathis.com/howell4a.pdf

Perhaps Mathis should actually read the articles that he posts at his own web site; maybe then he wouldn't make so many mathematical blunders.

[Chromium6]

A couple of wordy papers:
------
Opinion 137: On the Changing (Alas, So Slowly!) Attitudes to Mathematics
By Doron Zeilberger

Written: July 15, 2014

One of today's greatest philosophers of mathematics (and science), Ian Hacking has recently published a wonderful book entitled "Why Is There Philosophy of Mathematics At All?".

It is full of wonderful insights, and unlike most philosophers, who are oblivious to the attitudes of current, living, mathematicians, he actually takes them seriously, in spite of their philosophical naïveté [Would you ask a frog about the meaning of being a frog?].

One quote that I particularly liked was (Ch. 7, section 7, p. 232)

``The world has moved on. You cannot have the same attitude to the Folies Bergère (or to dancing girls) that contemporaries of Manet had when he painted the woman behind the bar in 1882; you cannot have the same attitudes to mathematics that philosophically minded German mathematicians had in the same decade.''

And indeed, the world has moved on, but the subworld of mathematics much slower than its complement. Both Alain Connes and Tim Gowers, with their opposing mathematical `philosophies' and attitudes (platonism vs. anti-platonism), and even forward-looking Vladimir Voevodsky, a champion of automated theorem proving, are still in the dark ages of proof-centered dogmatism. Wake up! There are so many interesting mathematical discoveries out there, and only a tiny fraction of them could be ever proved completely, even with the help of machinekind, so the time is ripe to stop wasting our (and our computers'!) time in trying to find `formal proof'. From now on, let's make rigorous proofs optional, and be content with mathematical knowledge that is true with probability 1-10-100.

I am sure that this would be the attitude in one hundred years, so why wait? Let's start to adopt it right away!

Opinions of Doron Zeilberger

https://math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion137.html
---------

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/su ... ?format=PB#

---------
Just call it as you see it:
https://math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/OPINIONS.html

---------


Opinion 110: (Human-Made) Mathematics is Necessarily Contingent, as I Realized on reading Amir Alexander's masterpiece "Duel at Dawn"

By Doron Zeilberger

Written: April 25, 2010

Seven years ago, I really enjoyed Amir Alexander's Geometrical Landscapes book, and was eagerly awaiting his next book. Finally it appeared and I was not disappointed! It is even better than Geometrical Landscapes. Like its predecessor, it can be read on at least two levels. On the "lower" level these are gripping stories of the life and struggles of mathematical geniuses, while on the "higher" level it illustrates so well the human side of the platonic "Queen of Science", and how even mathematics is full of myths, personality-cults, and over-simplistic stereotypes, and these perceptions-both from the outside and within-shape the actual body of mathematical knowledge.

But this implies even a deeper truth! Our mathematics is an accidental outcome of the random walk of history, and would have been very different with a different historical narrative. Even if, for the sake of argument, there is an "objective" mathematics out there, independent of us (or of the creatures in the fifth planet of star number 130103 in Galaxy number 4132, who are far smarter than us), whatever tiny fraction of it that we (or even our smarter colleagues from that galaxy) could have discovered, is entirely a fluke of history.

Another fluke of history is that the computer didn't exist in Euclid's, Gauss's, and even Hilbert's time. Lots of mathematics, for example the search for "closed-form", or "analytic" expressions, and good, simple approximations, and the obsession with linearization, came from the fact that we only had paper-and-pencil. It would be a great intellectual exercise to "rewind" mathematics, and start it all from scratch, taking advantage of the great computing power that we now have, and see how different it would be. Had the computer been invented 2500 years ago, mathematics would have been so different. Conversely, had the computer been invented 100 years from now, our present mathematics would also be quite different (but not as much).

And indeed, the computer did make some changes, but most of mathematical papers, and mathematical talks, are still in the narrative, semi-formal, humaneze, what David Ruelle calls "a dance around a formal proof".

Take for example, Galois theory. It was motivated by the stupid quest to solve a quintic by the highly inefficient and artificial format of "radicals", and by the dumb questions of whether you can trisect an angle, or double a cube, with ruler and compass; or the fact that Pi is transcendental, that came from the even dumber question of whether you can square the circle; or Non-Euclidean Geometry, that came from trying to (stupidly!) "prove" the parallel postulate. Of course, neither Galois theory, nor transcendence theory, nor Non-Euclidean Geometry, are stupid, they are beautiful theories, and it is possible that other, equally stupid, questions would have lead to them as well, but then again it is very possible that even stupider questions would have lead to even more beautiful and deep theories. Who knows?

The concluding chapter of Amir Alexander's book is particularly intriguing. He first summarizes the book, reviewing the 18th-century "Natural Man" persona (epitomized by d'Alembert), followed by the 19th-century "tragic martyr" myth (most notably Abel, Galois, and (surprisingly!) Cauchy), that drifted into the 20th century in the figures of Ramanujan, Nash, and into the 21st century in the figure of Grisha Perelman. He then wondered how would the image of the future mathematician be. Alexander pessimisticly speculates the unappealing image of the "computer-whiz-hacker", modeled after the "revenge of the nerds". I hope that he is wrong, and that the future prototypical mathematician would not be a vengeful geek, so let me propose two other personality types, neither tragic nor malicious, and much nicer than a power-hungry nerdy hacker.

One is that of the mathematical software engineer, who does not have the brilliant powers and flashes of insights of a Galois, an Abel, a Ramanujan, or a Perelman, but has nevertheless a deep understanding of what mathematics is all about, and how to get out of the computer as much mathematical knowledge as possible, without being hung-up on perfect rigor, or just as badly, complete lack of it, but striking a middle ground of semi-rigor and diversity, adjusting the level of rigor according to the importance of the results and the computer resources. That genial figure would still work for the love of math, but experience and maturity would play a greater role in his or her success than brilliant insights. In particular, mathematics would cease to be a "young man's game".

However, not all mathematics would be computerish! Sure, eventually all serious mathematics would be computer-generated (although for the next one hundred years, mostly computer-assisted), but human mathematics would become a sport, and there would be new kinds of mathematical heroes, and celebrities, just like in football, basketball, and baseball, and they would make lots of money. These future Art Benjamins would not only do four-digit-multiplications in their heads, but prove Fermat's Last Theorem and the Poincaré conjecture by only using pencil-and-paper (and ultimately, completely mentally), without resorting to computers (and hopefully w/o steroids either). Now mathematicians would really become household names, and even if they won't be as popular as baseball players, at least they would be on a par with chess grand-masters.

So let's hope!

https://math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion110.html

[David]

Miles attended Monterey High School [Lubbock, TX] and excelled in many areas there. He should be remembered by the takers of the PSAT, 1980, for questioning one of the answers on the math portion. The PSAT admitted its error and was forced to change all scores nationally.

http://mileswmathis.com/bio.html

Ah, what an altogether heartwarming story. Young Miles Mathis, the boy genesis, discovered an overlooked error in the math portion of his 1980 PSAT exam. Wow! That’s a very impressive accomplishment; which by anyone’s estimation makes him indeed worthy of the title “The New Leonardo”, as he commonly refers to himself.

But then, this thread is a discussion of the myriad things Mathis has gotten completely wrong. And as it turns out, Mathis has even managed to get his own biography wrong.

According to all internet sources (including the New York Times), it was 17-year-old Daniel Lowen who discovered an error in the math portion of the 1980 PSAT exam; not Miles Mathis. See links below:

http://mathlair.allfunandgames.ca/saterrors.php
http://wordplay.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ ... id-2/?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/17/us/yo ... cores.html

[David]

Spell Check, though it often works quite well, doesn’t always produce the desired result.

Correction: “genesis” should read “genius”.