Miles Mathis

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby sponsoredwalk » Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:18 am

Siggy_G wrote:The questioning forwarded by Electric Universe theory, as I understand it, isn't questioning every aspect of math and classical physics, but underlines the roles of electricity and plasma behaviour in space/nature. Hereby, it investigates the possibility that gravity is a co-product of electromagnetic forces and dynamics (and questions the gravity constant). It is also questioning the usage of highly abstract math turned into physical entities. So, here it is not really about questioning the value of pi or the mechanisms of a falling apple when all values are known. It is questioning black holes, worm holes, neutron stars, numerous "physical" dimensions and the exotic zoo of particles.


I agree with your points, any argumentum ad atominum ;) is a joke, it just doesn't apply to mathematics.
I don't know if Mathis is perpetuating this electric universe theory but any consideration that it's the fault of
highly abstract math is the intellectual equivalent of questioning medicine because of hearsay that acupuncture
can help cure some diseases, I mean why don't those fancy pants doctors use what works? They are obviously
elitist!! :lol:
If anything the math we are using is just not enough, and any concern that the opposite is true can be easily
made redundant by considering Mathis extreme misuse of simple math. Currently there are about 7 or 8 Mathis
papers I've seen online in which he commits extremely basic errors using extremely basic math and derives a
new world out of this error. Any claim of his that he predicts X, Y or Z is disproven if he uses fallacious
foundations. If you know the answer you need then rederiving it with faulty math isn't hard. Read the
site I linked to in my last post to see these taken apart & poorly defended in the comments sections.

The langauage and anti-authoritarian tone Mathis takes in his paper is alluring to someone who doesn't know the
subject deeply. From actually reading the first 10 or so pages of this thread it seems that it definitely works.
There were many people who didn't understand basic physics saying that although they don't fully understand him
it seems logical, I mean this is a grade A snake oil technique, of the intellectual variety. All of the comments in
this thread hilariously mentioning "be skeptical" are put to shame, to see how this concept has been perverted is
shocking. There is no quick-fix easy answer to all of physics problems mentioned in a Brian Greene book, the
way mathematics works is to train your mind to consider & reconsider all possibilities & every avenue has
been considered by ambitious people hoping to become the next Einstein, (I don't buy that self-congratulatory
reasoning, but there are people who would point out the flaws that apparently only Mathis was smart enough
to see in order to get some historical recognition).

The only hope of simple math describing something major is if a new physical discovery is made, or something
previously unknown presents itself in a way that will lead people to discovery. And besides, speaking from
seriously painful history with math, once you get over the hump & begin to learn about topics like differential
forms, cuts, groups, transforms etc... you seriously appreciate & relish the power of abstract math.
Read a basic physics book, there is a good one - Understanding Physics by Mansfield that is way shorter than
the huge 1200 page ones & contains the same info more or less. You'll see the flaws in Mathis work & realise
you've been sold snake oil while being asked to fund him in his quest to further trick susceptible people.

As was said, to those hardcore people the request is there to disprove the stuff in the papers. Any delusions that
the pi = 4 paper is only applicable in physical situations, such is the lie I read around page 6 of this thread, are
instantly called for what they are - total bs - when we look at the proof/reasoning Mathis uses to derive his
conclusions. Again Mathis foundational justifications do not accord with his conclusions. Essentially
in the paper DDD took to pieces Mathis geometric argument is basically that in the picture:

Image

Read DDD's paper to find out the reasoning why this is false, but there are more ways to realise it.
Notice this has nothing to do with planets orbiting earth. Read DDD's paper to see that Mathis is not
using any orbital velocity arguments when he comes to an answer ;)

I don't know how people can get deeply into 4th year material of an undergad course or graduate material in
online discussions, i.e. GR stuff, QCD etc... all the while knowing nothing about basic physics. I remember
a period in which I spoke big about these subjects but you personally know you are wafting hot air & grow
out of it. If you guys are smart enough to get as deep into it as it appears then there is no reason why an
honest study of physics wouldn't do wonders for you. Just my opinion, I'll go back to my subservient life now :lol:
sponsoredwalk
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:02 am

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Siggy_G » Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:02 am

seasmith wrote:Read DDD's paper to find out the reasoning why this is false, but there are more ways to realise it.
Notice this has nothing to do with planets orbiting earth. Read DDD's paper to see that Mathis is not
using any orbital velocity arguments when he comes to an answer ;)


Well, I wrote something about this in the following thread:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3183

One basically has to cut the corners diagonally/tangentially, not XY binary, as I illustrated. I realize though that Mathis have later underlined that his pi papers only apply to kinetic situations, not static ones. But still, his reasoning don't convince me. Since natural orbits don't move in jagged paths, pi will never equal 4. And above all, pi is simply a ratio, not acceleration itself.

Also, as stated earlier, I still think Miles have some good/interesting statements among his writings (e.g. the one against gravitational lensing), and I haven't read through all of his work yet.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby sponsoredwalk » Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:30 am

Good stuff, I knew I'd see it again, I knew I'd see the argument that you have to understand Mathis calculus to
understand why π = 4 :roll: This is going to be the ever-present argumentum ad verecundiam. Basically you
were not refuted in that post, which means DDD's proof by contradiction certainly wont be refuted either.
It may be that Mathis has some good arguments & if you find any you should get him to submit them to a
journal. Just make sure he tones down the insanely hypocritical rhetoric. Whatever historical perception he
has been constructing it's not the one people will see if they look at his scientific papers & find him scolding
textbooks, mathematicians, wikipedia, women, democracy.... only to see such basic errors in elementary papers.
sponsoredwalk
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:02 am

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby SleestackVII » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:45 am

Mr. Mathis has written a new paper which everyone here should take a look at. It is not physics related but more of a social commentary on the state of science today.

http://milesmathis.com/1920.html

I my opinion he hits one out of the park! This couldn't have been more appropriately timed.

Coincidentally It addresses some of the things that DDD has brought up in his second post on this forum.
Like this irrelevant statement,

DDD wrote,

Do you think all the countless scientists and mathematicians of the past and present who devoted their lives to their field of study were all content to play along with a giant lie what completely invalidates their lifes work?


Barring any conspiratorial argument Miles answers this question and more...

All I can say is, "Bravo!" Miles. Again your analysis is correct and insightful.



Also be on the lookout for my rebuttal to Dan's, (aka DDD), "a reply to the exticntion of Pi."

Normally I love a good challenge but it turned out to be less challenging than I first thought.

Coming Soon!
SleestackVII
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:42 am

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby DDD » Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:18 pm

Sleestack:

The proof against Mathi Pi=4 cannot be refuted. If you think you can, well, then you just demonstrate that you are fundamnetally incapable of understanding what a proof is. I suppose that is why you are stuck here making nonsense claims instead of actually contributing to any science. I can only guess that you never had any formal training in mathematics, otherwise you would be able to see through Mathis nonsense. So while you sit here and try to conconct some support for Mathis the real mathematicians will be spending their time on something meaningul, not some destined to fail support for a crank.

On Mathis ramblings on the state of science, it's nothing but an attempt to explain away why he is not taken seriously by any actualy scientists. He takes aim at the peer review system, since that presumable the mechanism that bars nay of his work being published in a real journal. He seems to want to do away with the system, but offers no sensible replacement. Does he think it reasonable for a journal to print every single paper submitted to them? The peer review system accomplishes the same goal as a draft in professional sports. The draft ensures that only the highest quality players end up on a team, the peer review system ensures that papers of any value get printed. Allowing a Mathis paper into a real journal would be equivalent to letting any joe-sixpack play on a professional football team, it just not a good idea.

I do see what draws people to Mathis work. For some reason they are unable to understand anything more serious. Perhaps they never had any mathematical training, or perhaps they just don't have enough upstairs to understand mathematics. Either way when they read about some guy claiming to understand theoretical physics and the only tool needed is basic algebra, well then that makes them feel better about themselves. It's not that they just couldn't understand, it's that the science community lied to them and hid their lies behind esoteric language and unnecessary complex structure. Mathis never once backs up any of his shit with experimental evidence to support it, he never offers formal proof, and he absolutely never considers that he may be wrong. No all that Mathis offers is the self agrandizing rant of a small man without the mental ability to understand modern science let alone contribute anything of value to it.

All that his little social commentary does is allow people to feel good about themselves, it was not them who didn't/couldn't/wouldn't understand, it was a giant conspiracy to keep them down perpetrated by the academic community.

Quite honestly there are only two types of people who would accept Mathis' "papers". Tho who truly know nothing about physics and math that are just casual readers and would not be able to judge it compared to any other work in the field. Then there are fellow cranks.

Come on, prove that Pi=4. You can try as hard has you want, it's destined to fail. A simple measurement of a can of pop demonstrates that Pi is nowhere near equal to 4. Actually, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the company that makes measuring tapes is in on the conspiracy.
DDD
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:51 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:12 pm

~
D D D ,

Please remember:

“More specifically, the π that I am correcting is the constant in the orbital equation v = 2πr/t.”






Image
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby DDD » Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:38 pm

seasmith wrote:~
D D D ,

Please remember:

“More specifically, the π that I am correcting is the constant in the orbital equation v = 2πr/t.”






Image


I saw that orbital part. However to try to prove it he used plane geometry. Once he placed it in a formal setting like that any appeal to orbits, acceleration, velocities, etc, become extraneous information. If something is true in plane geometry, then it is true no matter what the geometry is meant to represent. The geometry could be used to represent an orbit, a drawing, whatever, it does not matter Pi will never equal 4 in plane geometry.

As far as whether he is correct in a physical situation, he is not. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that a planet can only move in directions parelell to some coordinate axis. There is no evidence that a planets motion is broken up into small perpendicular "steps", and further the claim that it does would violate one of Newtons laws of motion. This would suggest that every monotonic path an object could take between two points would have the same length, its just outlandish.

What exactly is that diagram supposed to prove?

If you are truly interested in physics or math I would urge you to forget about Mathis. His technical claims offer nothing to science, and are so far as I can tell, all wrong. By accepting his nonsense you are doing yourself a great diservice. You are cheating yourself out of a true understanding and the chance to contribute anything meaningful.
DDD
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:51 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby sponsoredwalk » Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:58 pm

seasmith wrote:~
D D D ,

Please remember:

“More specifically, the π that I am correcting is the constant in the orbital equation v = 2πr/t.”



Obviously you don't understand the maths behind this, if you did you would see the blatant contradiction.
While Mathis does indeed say he is correcting this for orbital equations the proof he gives in the paper that
DDD irredeemably destroyed is a purely geometrical argument relying on nothing other than Euclidean arguments
in the plane. Mathis doesn't even need to rely on his nonsense about line being a velocity being an acceleration even though it's really secretly a velocity even though the units are off because it's second order.... :|.
In DDD's paper Mathis uses only geometry, look at the picture with "problem Archimedes? :lol: " in it,
Mathis essentially uses this geometric argument for 1/8 or a circle. This is wrong for so many
reasons that you'll read about them in the paper of DDD's, but if you don't understand the math
then you wont get it which is obviously true because you even had to bring this up in the first place :?
Just to make sure, you guys are being told that a line this long ------------- is really this long ---- and
using some scary technical calculus wizard machine to justify this. Limits are not in the business of
making lines shorter for the purposes of deceiving people. Also, as for 2πr/t, I mean you have
to decode this just to clarify what kind of snake oil you're being sold. Do you agree that the
circumference of a circle is 2πr? Good, now if you straighten 2πr out in a line its just a
length or a distance between two points. If you travel from A to B along this line in a certain time then
you are going distance divided by time, oh that's velocity! This is just the basic velocity equation.
v = d/t = 2πr/t By definition a circle satisfies this condition. Now, any object moving in a circular path
also satisfies this by definition. Notice there is no link between Mathis geometrical argument and the
planets at all.

As for this unchallenging rebuttal to DDD, I can't wait! Will it be as good as the hilariously deceitful ones
you attempted with me where you managed to show us how deep your alliegance to truth lies? This latest
response just shows how ingrained this deception has become, & the fact that Mathis latest paper actually
appeals your sympathies is just more confirmation. This game will only continue as long as gullible people
keep reading his diatribe "scientific" papers & funding him after reading the odd appeal for cash he throws
out, I honestly thought humanity was smarter than this...
sponsoredwalk
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:02 am

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby CTJG 1986 » Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:21 pm

Sponsoredwalk and DDD, you two wouldn't happen to be siblings, spouses or roommates would you?

It's odd that just now I witnessed for the 2nd time here the two of you logging in and out in close succession repeatedly over a period of a few minutes, then both posting within minutes of each other. But I have never seen you both online at the same time.

Were you having trouble deciding which account to use for the attack and which to use for supporting the attack?

Regardless if you two are one person or two I am glad to see you sorted out the order of posting, that back and forth was making me paranoid... :?

And no I won't be making any comments on the bulk of the content of this thread as I have only just began studying Mathis work, and "study" is a loose term. Just offering an observation on the providers of content for this thread that may be of note to others concerned with it.

If I am mistaken in this being a case of multiple online identities then I truly do apologize, and I really do hope I am wrong as supporting your own comments with another account is quite shameful where I'm from.

Jonny
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.
CTJG 1986
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby sponsoredwalk » Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:48 pm

http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/201 ... -reply-to-“the-extinction-of-pi-the-short-version”/

http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/20 ... roves-pi4/

Read these pages & see my comments compared to DDD's & judge for yourself. Even if we were the
same person it would not change the validity of our arguments. Similarly, even though we both
asidiously suspect that Mathis & Oostdijk are in fact the same person it doesn't change the validity
of Mathis arguments. It just so happens that Mathis arguments are thoroughally bunk, as we've
gone into considerable detail explaining, but still Oostdijk unwaveringly supports Mathis in the face
of evidence to the contrary. So assume I & Dan are the same person if you want, if our arguments
were wrong & we were (I was?) puppeteering between accounts as some kind of argumentum ad
populum then you'd be rightly suspicious. As for your study of Mathis material, my honest advice would
be to study the papers by Mathis that are critiqued on that wordpress site above yourself deeply before reading
the criticisms they make. Then when you fully accept Mathis (assuming you do) read the criticism &
test yourself, either you can admit that Mathis was wrong, can defend Mathis arguments &
correct the authors of those papers (probably also my work under my pseudonyms there :lol: ) or
will just ignore the truth & defend Mathis to the end regardless. I think it'd be a constructive
enterprise. Just as I think studying math book with solutions manuals is a good idea assuming
you are honest & seriously attempt as much as possible before the hint, also with Mathis
work you have the benefit of having a "corrected" version to test your critical faulties. This way
you will not build up a load of errors on which an empire of snake oil can be founded.
sponsoredwalk
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:02 am

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:13 pm

...but if you don't understand the math
then you wont get it which is obviously true because you even had to bring this up in the first place.
...What exactly is that diagram supposed to prove?


D,

The diagram isn't to "prove" anything. It is, after all, only a 2-Dimensional graphic.
It is to help you THINK, for yourself.


I apologize, but don't have time for diatribes...
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby SleestackVII » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:56 pm

DDD.

I am working on a rebuttal for the paper you wrote. I never said your irrelevant proofs were incorrect. I am prepared to show that you are a terrible hack and couldn't understand Mathis if you tried. If you had you wouldn't have wasted your time on constructing the proofs that you did.

Also, I am not a professional physicist or mathematician nor have I ever claimed I was. This is quite irrelevant. Truth is truth. One doesn't need a degree to speak truth or to create a theory. That is one way your thinking is wrong--regardless if Mathis' is correct or not.

I can see you are one who worships at the feet of the priesthood of scientists and insiders that control and filter what is and isn't allowed in the mainstream of society. There are many like you. Perhaps you think by attacking Mathis you can be in good graces with them I don't know. Part of this is the peer review system we have today and it is almost criminal. Remember Climate-gate?

Governments and the Military Industrial Complexes of these governments cooperating with certain Universities have taken real theoretical and applied sciences underground and hidden them away in secret for many years now and all we are left with are the scraps. At the very least the public is 50 years behind the technology that is created in secret bases all over the world.
So this government/corporate/military cabal feed the public pap and you are more than ready to eat it right up.

Anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves.

Most of these issue are societal and political and like Miles believes should be expunged from science altogether. I agree with him. But Since you brought these issues up in your post I thought I would comment on it.

It is disappointing to me that you cant stick to disproving the theories instead of destroying the man. Also your appeals to "reason" in your earlier posts seem to me like the tell of a weak hand. (I will expound on this in a future post)

Lastly, Mathis is a theorist. He is not an experimentalist. He has asked repeatedly in different papers for help from others to either conduct experiments and/or provide funds to experiment with his theory. But you should already know this. You have read his papers right? I mean I hope you have taken the time to read the man's work before you belittle him and throw around words like "crackpot" and "crank". But I am willing to bet you haven't looked at five percent of his website ---and it is now quite clear to me that you wish to deny him this help and these potential funds by your attacks.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
SleestackVII
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:42 am

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby sponsoredwalk » Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:27 pm

This question isn't addressed to me (or is it? :lol: ) but there are a number of things you've said there that
are just mind boggling and have dragged me into it, & I'm not talking about the tinfoil hat stuff...

SleestackVII wrote:DDD.

I am working on a rebuttal for the paper you wrote. I never said your irrelevant proofs were incorrect.


SleestackVII wrote:But I am willing to bet you haven't looked at five percent of his website ---and it is now quite clear to me that you wish to deny him this help and these potential funds by your attacks.


Just so we get this clear, I'm the person with the kinetic energy issues that you completely got wrong &
constantly tried to apologise for without success. I'm keeping track of the names, so should you &
seasmith who quotes all responses as if they are from one person when they are not, just read his last
post to see him quote my writing as if it's DDD's. Now, I'm the one who is mentioning that Mathis is
selling snake oil by giving wrong info & asking for money, not DDD. I don't remember him mentioning it so
don't accost him for my comments.

Anyway, with regard to what I quoted, you've just explicitly claimed that DDD's arguments aren't
necessarily wrong. Well are they? You have gone on record as calling him a hack because he may or
may not have correct arguments, this is just another example of your undying alliegance to Mathis that
I have already commented on. It's disturbing to see you unwaveringly fight like this. Obviously you don't
have a disproof of DDD yet because you would have said it, you wouldn't have been so coy so in other
words we see you are not fighting for any logical reason to do with the contents of the paper, rather
because Mathis champions your anti-authoritarian impulses against the big bad government of
which I'm obviously a shill :roll:

The point here is that you accost DDD for not focusing on the content of Mathis arguments, which is
hilarious seeing as he wrote an extremely detailed rebuttal of Mathis claims & gave not one but two
seperate disproofs to obviously assuage any claims like that you now make
, but you actually haven't
provided any content of your own & have posted just to attack the character of DDD instead of
focusing on his proof like you've claimed you would do for the last 2 or 3 posts. This is ridiculously
unprofessional & I think less insults & more professionalism is what you sorely need. Once we return to
the professional level we can solely focus on the content of Mathis paper & see it for what he's
already claimed and proven it is - bunk.

Another point you raised about degrees or qualifications, what a strawman to construct especially seeing as
I have literally no qualifications, do not attend any schools or anything but I can see it's total bunk because
I have the minimal mathematical sophistication to understand an actual mathematical argument.

I'll ignore the secret bases & government stuff that you hilariously had to mention :lol:

Basically you're ironically claiming DDD can't stick to the substance but has to go ad hominem when literally
all of your posts have been nothing but confusion & light insults (with regard to the kinetic energy discussion)
and now more ad hominem fun, a comment that DDD may not even be wrong & a lot of conspiracy stuff yet no
rebuttal. This is hilarious! :mrgreen:

Oh, and I do hope you'll let us all know how showing that Mathis own arguments, that he himself constructs,
are in fact bogus is irrelevant as you say ;)
sponsoredwalk
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:02 am

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby davesmith_au » Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:21 am

Topic locked when it degenerated into a childish free-for-all. Ad homs are very much frowned upon on our forum, and all those concerned should re-assess their approaches. If you must fight, do it on someone else's forum, not here.

Dave Smith.
Forum Administrator.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests