I agree with your points, any argumentum ad atominum is a joke, it just doesn't apply to mathematics.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 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
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:
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