Miles Mathis Interview

[Gottlieb680]

You have not written anything worthwhile yet, D Archer. So what if you aren't interested? Maybe that accounts for the lack of content in your posts.

What I have consistently done is point out errors and inadequacies in Mathis' "papers" and I contend that there is actually a difference between a convincing argument and an unconvincing one, a correct analysis and an incorrect one, and a clear explanation and an unclear one. You feign lack of interest, yet here you are again.

As Lloyd has so conveniently demonstrated by posting Mathis' absurd "An Experiment To Test The Charge Field", Mathis cannot write an experiment proposal. Lloyd wants to venture "reading between the lines" to be able to understand exactly how the 12 sentences Mathis wrote constitute a proposal for an experiment. The whole article is a monumental failure of intellect on the part of Mathis. He wrote this article for a lay audience and expects us to provide our own hypothesis and procedure. He certainly did not describe either in any useful detail. So much for having "returned physics to its mechanical foundations" as he claimed he has done in the opening lines of the "paper". Where are the mechanical foundations in that so-called experiment proposal?

It is the responsibility of Mathis to make clear what he is proposing. Leaving us to "read between the lines"as Lloyd says we should is an unreasonable expectation. Mathis is supposed to be making the proposal, not the readers.

[Sparky]

Gottlieb680,

No amount of ------self-delusion will make any difference when reality hits him.

I am in general agreement with what you are saying. I also admire your overall ability to analyze.

I would just like to point out that we should not wish reality hitting anyone, for that is a vulnerability we all share.

You have laid out a convincing argument, and have put Mathis in a different light for me. thank you.

[David]

Who are you people? Writing essays about Miles Mathis while making not one actual interesting remark?

What made you come out of the darkness and drew you to the thunderbolts.info forum, it is not wisdom, because you all seem to have that in spades.

A question that ends with a period, and a statement that ends with a question mark.

But putting aside the careless punctuation, you have essentially answered your own question: “Who are you people?” According to you, we are people with "wisdom". And on that single point alone, you will receive no argument from me.

[Corpuscles]

Who are you people? Writing essays about Miles Mathis while making not one actual interesting remark?

What made you come out of the darkness and drew you to the thunderbolts.info forum, it is not wisdom, because you all seem to have that in spades.

A question that ends with a period, and a statement that ends with a question mark.

But putting aside the careless punctuation, you have essentially answered your own question: “Who are you people?” According to you, we are people with "wisdom". And on that single point alone, you will receive no argument from me.

Dear David
Re: your exchange with other posters

Ha Ha! Time for a re-think on that which is bolded! ( Not a question ,needing ? , but an emphatic statement with !)

It seems as you and <moderator edit>Gottilieb have both got your... knickers in a twist ....about Miles Mathis!

That displays a distinct lack of wisdom.

Apart from the vindictive personal adhomniem attacks, there is suggestion he is hiding. BS!... from who?, you pompous clowns?

He doesn't force anyone to read his stuff, but your egos seem dented that your wrote learning and religious worship at the alter of mainstream orthodoxy is challenged, simply by others considering his articles.

Mathis has got a lot plain wrong, but is at least interesting and entertaining.

Thank you both for highlighting how smart you think you are

Cheers

[David]

Mathis has got a lot plain wrong...

It would appear that we are in total agreement on that issue!

[Chromium6]

Hey Gottlieb, David and Bill.... if you could help out with the Fukushima radiation that'd be great. What would you propose as a good course of action? And if so, why not go there and do experiments firsthand to solve the problem of the radiation?

Have you heard any good suggestions that might fix the problem or have you read any papers that hint at a workable long-term solution (except eventually evacuating Japan)? Kind of curious to see what might be a good "scientific" approach to the clean up?

Would you look at Mathis' paper here before suiting up? Or just grumble and call him "unscientific" and "wrong"... and go out and solve the problem? I think Mathis wants to be the reverse of Oppenheimer...
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf

Also, here's a journal that Mathis is published in. Maybe all of you will be there someday too but be sure read the purpose. And if you really get perturbed... you can always blanket email the editors:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journal/purpose
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-P ... ,%20Mathis

[sjw40364]

I see no more problems with Miles' papers than exists in every paper by every scientist. They all believe their theory is correct, they all exclude data that may be harmful to it, and they all have errors whether they want to believe it or not. I am sure Miles is just as convinced he is correct as you are convinced he is incorrect. Just as I am convinced you are both correct and are both in error.

Just as I believe in E=mc^2, which whether people like it or not means that a particle completely "at rest" , i.e. it's energy is equal to its rest-mass with no kinetics or potential outside energy involved.

The Minkowski metric used in relativity is assumed to have the form diag (+1, −1, −1, −1). Where the equations are specified as holding in a vacuum, one could instead regard them as the formulation of Maxwell's equations in terms of total charge and current.
Already in §10 of his paper on electrodynamics, Einstein used the formula E(kin) = mc^2 (1divided by root 1- v^2/c^2 -1) for the kinetic energy of an electron. In elaboration of this he published a paper (received 27 September, November 1905), in which Einstein showed that when a material body lost energy (either radiation or heat) of amount E, its mass decreased by the amount E/c^2. This led to the famous mass–energy equivalence formula: E=mc^2
Einstein considered the equivalency equation to be of paramount importance because it showed that a massive particle possesses an energy, the "rest energy", distinct from its classical kinetic and potential energies.

Yet when a particle accelerates it gains apparent mass or energy, without a corresponding increase in volume of matter. So the energy of a particle may be equal to its rest-mass divided by the square of c, but it is distinct from matter and NOT to be confused with it. At 2G I have twice the energy from interaction with particles, yet I do not have twice the matter I had before. Charge and mass are the same, but matter only contains this charge. I may decrease the energy of a particle and decrease both its mass and matter content, less energy means less matter the atom can hold in proximity. But I can increase both mass and charge without a corresponding increase in matter. At 2G you are not twice as big or twice as dense as you were before, which if matter was mass or energy it would be a required result. Particles contain energy or mass or charge or work or force or whatever word you decide to call it, but do not confuse that mass with matter itself.

There is no such creature as an error free theory, despite many claims to the contrary.

[David]

Chromium6,

I have done a thorough and meticulous examination of Mathis’ papers on Pi, Newton’s Lemma and a few of the Calculus articles and found them, one and all, to be riddled with errors. If you have any questions pertaining to these subjects, I would be more than happy to respond. But to ask me to wade through, yet another, Mathis bastardization of science borders on cruel and unusual punishment.

From my perspective, Mathis has become a classic example of Aesop’s Fable: “The boy who cried wolf”. There could be a kernel of truth buried somewhere within the thousands of pages he has written, but we have long sense stopped believing in any of his preposterous claims.

[Gottlieb680]

Well, Corpuscles, it seems you're the one using ad hominems and the moderator had to edit it out. Great scientific rigor there Corpuscles. You seem to be the one who is in a twist. If logic doesn't work, then surely it does?

Mathis has plastered the internet with lead-ins to his "papers"so that you can't do a search without his titles coming up with claims for," the extinction of pi", "the calculus is corrupt"," physics is corrupt"," why( fill in the blank) is a cheat", "eleven big questions you should have for the standard model," and a few hundred others, so the idea of not reading at least one to see if his absurd claims are genuine is an unreasonable one. But when we do read one and see that there are hundreds more, and each one we read is as mistaken as the last, and we see that many people were talking about them as if Mathis' "papers" were verified science, we felt an obligation to register our explanations of why Mathis is in error. I know that is what I felt, but I think others would agree to a similar motivation.

Mathis is a colossal failure of intellect, imagination, scientific thinking, logic and work ethic. The more you analyze his writings the more you see that is not right. He dispenses with the scientific method but does not replace it with anything better, just more of his tortured, jumbled, disorganized musings.

Mathis is now paying for years of abuse he's heaped upon the scientific community. And Mathis is wrong so often that one cannot have any confidence in his brash claims to have reformulated calculus, returned physics to its mechanical foundations and so on and so on. Such a pathological lack of humility is something that should be taken as a clear warning. He is hiding from seeking funds to experiment( because everyone else is a pawn of the government and the investors are corrupt). He is hiding from submitting for peer review (because peer review, he assures us, is corrupt and he doesn't know how to write a scientific paper). He is hiding from soliciting his readers for funds to experiment, saying he'd rather just continue writing more "papers"( because he really doesn't know how to write a actual experiment proposal and wouldn't know how to run an experiment anyway). He is hiding because of all these and more, but the biggest flop is pi=4. He won't retract it because that would be admitting he was wrong. He won't correct or revise or work all of it out on paper for a 3D ellipse because that process would uncover his errors even to himself (if he's not already too far gone).

Mathis is no different from any other purveyor of botched scientific theories on the internet. Readers should closely analyze his ideas with the intent to prove them wrong. That is part of what is demanded by scientific rigor. Mathis seems to only re-check his ideas with the intent to prove them correct, and runs afoul of the old cautions against confirmation bias.

Mathis' theories, the ones I've analyzed, do not hold up as being correct. I have clearly laid out my explanations. If anything, suspicion should be directed at Mathis for writing such junk in the first place and posting it all over the scientific search spaces of the internet.

[David]

Readers should closely analyze his ideas with the intent to prove them wrong.

Profoundly wise and sage advice that we should all pay heed to!

[hertz]

Gottlieb680 wrote:

Mathis is a colossal failure of intellect, imagination, scientific thinking, logic and work ethic. The more you analyze his writings the more you see that is not right. He dispenses with the scientific method but does not replace it with anything better, just more of his tortured, jumbled, disorganized musings.

having read more than a few of his essays, i have to disagree with some of those assessments...he strikes me as a very intelligent guy with a rich imagination who's work ethic is to be admired...i read him now as more of an artist/iconoclast who enjoys poking at things the mainstream take for granted...as such, much of his work is highly entertaining, as well as thought provoking and should be read by the mainstream as contra-statements to their precious canon and may even help them (and us) maintain some modicum of modesty and dare i say, honesty...of course he's also possessed of a healthy ego, as all really good artists must be if they are not to be cowed by their critics...is he going to win a nobel prize...not likely...does he care...even less likely...my advice is to read his work, and follow his logic (which is often a mirror image of what we've been taught) with an open mind that might lead to a series of self-discoveries that may prove more valuable than anything he may have to say about a subject so prosaic as science.

[Gottlieb680]

Hertz, you seem to be describing a different person from the Miles Mathis revealed on his website. Mathis' attacks on individuals, institutions, academia, and the scientific community are unfounded and not entertaining. They are classic misdirection aimed at lulling the reader with unverified vitriolic criticism and titillating some people's desire to see experts belittled. Mathis keeps saying physics is in trouble, but this is a short-sighted, self-indulgent falsehood and he isn't doing anything of usefulness in the field anyhow. Mathis vents his anger at people who are actually working in the field and seems to forget he had the opportunity to get his degree in the sciences and squandered it by insisting he already knew everything. Yet he gets a degree in philosophy. So he could be taught in philosophy but not in physics? Big red flag.

Mathis' claims to be the New Leonardo, to be the only one in centuries to get large sections of math right, to be the one who returned physics to its mechanical foundations, and to be the one who has revolutionized science are not signs of a healthy ego. These claims are the unmistakable signs of longstanding trouble, which doctors would have no difficulty diagnosing, I'm sure( except with the understanding, Mathis might say, that doctors are corrupt). Mathis feeds this trouble with the adoration of his fans, who themselves are largely unable or unwilling to analyze his ideas and who swallowed them with the weak throwaway line, " I don't know if he's right or not, but he makes some good points". Thank heavens this has largely abated since 2010.

But my concern is with the so-called science itself. Mathis insists that he is doing science but his "papers" are mere essays. He doesn't often refer to any previous research but usually just references his own previous ideas. Another red flag. And he says physics is in trouble? More to the point would be for readers to wonder why Mathis can't organize his thoughts into more readable form, why he can't make use of previous research, why he can't first research a topic before he decides it needs "correcting", why he can't just do the math in the essay and do away with the vague wordy talkarounds, why he can't stop the preening, pathologically grandiose, self-references, why he can't experiment, and why he can't realize his essays have largely become vehicles for his rants against others.

[sjw40364]

Mathis has plastered the internet with lead-ins to his "papers"so that you can't do a search without his titles coming up with claims for," the extinction of pi", "the calculus is corrupt"," physics is corrupt"," why( fill in the blank) is a cheat", "eleven big questions you should have for the standard model," and a few hundred others, so the idea of not reading at least one to see if his absurd claims are genuine is an unreasonable one. But when we do read one and see that there are hundreds more, and each one we read is as mistaken as the last, and we see that many people were talking about them as if Mathis' "papers" were verified science, we felt an obligation to register our explanations of why Mathis is in error. I know that is what I felt, but I think others would agree to a similar motivation.

And now you understand the EU's frustration with standard cosmology model theories. Yet standard cosmology takes the same stance as Miles, that it is always the other guy that is incorrect. At least you gave Miles a chance and reviewed his theories, it would be nice if those in power would at least grant the EU the same vbenefit of the doubt.

[phyllotaxis]

Well played sjw- very well played

[Lloyd]

Gottlieb680 wrote: Readers should closely analyze his ideas with the intent to prove them wrong.

Profoundly wise and sage advice that we should all pay heed to!

* Readers should do whatever the heck they want. I personally don't go around analyzing ideas to prove them wrong. I look for ideas that seem reasonable and potentially enlightening. If others want to go around proving things wrong, let em do so. If others want to read ideas for strangeness, or fantasy, or beauty, or whatever, why should anyone care what their motives are?
* But I think you Mathis haters' motives are just to defend the status quo, or to feel superior.