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

Miles Mathis

Unread postby oz93666 » Fri May 19, 2017 7:20 pm

I've only just discovered this guy ...working my way through his enormous output ..

At first glance he appears to be onboard with many EU ideas ..

Is anyone familiar with his work , and would like to give an assessment?
oz93666
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby moses » Fri May 19, 2017 8:12 pm

There are a few here that have read most of the Miles Mathis papers. I like his charge theory and his nuclear models. He has moved into the EU sphere lately and it is worth reading his ideas, even if some of those ideas may be plain wrong. Because once you understand his basic ideas you can start applying them to EU, probably in a different way to what he would.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby oz93666 » Fri May 19, 2017 9:30 pm

Thanks for your reply Mo...

I've just looked at his first paper on Pie = 4 http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf ...It looks total insanity!What are your thoughts on this?

Can you point me to his better work?
oz93666
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby D_Archer » Sat May 20, 2017 12:03 am

oz93666 wrote:Thanks for your reply Mo...

I've just looked at his first paper on Pie = 4 http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf ...It looks total insanity!What are your thoughts on this?

Can you point me to his better work?


Hi oz,

From a fellow Dutch citizen of mine > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhuvUSS3KAE&feature=youtu.be

For Miles geometric pie ( :D ) is still 3.14, but that ratios does not apply to kinematic situations where time is included. Geometry does not take the time into consideration that is needed to draw a circle (in real space).
---

As for reading Mathis, if you are only interested in Science then start at the very beginning, he has a section overview on his science site, start with 3 calculus, then 0 (overview/foundations) and then 1 and the rest in sequential order. It is more than 6000 pages, i read them all and a lot more than once, it will take a lot of time but is definitely worth it.

I think his greatest work is discovering the charge field (photons with real extension, radius and spin that are everywhere and underlie E/M fields) and section 9 about nuclear structure and charge channeling.
---

As for a favorite article of mine, i always really liked this one on Goethe > http://milesmathis.com/rain2.html / If only because i was always amazed with Goethe even before Miles wrote this.
---

Finally, if you really want to know who Miles Mathis is, i would not recommend starting with his science site, i did the opposite, i found people linking to science articles here on this forum, i was interested, but started with his art site, i read all of his articles there too, and i started at the bottom* , his very first art articles, and that is where you really get to know him, i think he is an artist foremost.

*First read the manifest on the main page of > http://mileswmathis.com/ and then the oldest articles > http://mileswmathis.com/2003.html , and work your way up.

Have fun. Some of these art aricles made me laugh out loud, kicking modernism in the teeth is always very humorous to me, it is kind of the same kicking EU does to mainstream science, in the end "modern art" and "modern science" are related, realizing this you might find a new perspective on this world, it takes the red pill and that is where most people do not want to go...

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby oz93666 » Sat May 20, 2017 3:01 am

D_Archer wrote:
oz93666 wrote:Thanks for your reply Mo...

I've just looked at his first paper on Pie = 4 http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf ...It looks total insanity!What are your thoughts on this?

Can you point me to his better work?


Hi oz,

From a fellow Dutch citizen of mine > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhuvUSS3KAE&feature=youtu.be

For Miles geometric pie ( :D ) is still 3.14, but that ratios does not apply to kinematic situations where time is included. Geometry does not take the time into consideration that is needed to draw a circle (in real space).
---


Thanks Daniel ...I'll look into all that ... I've already seen the Dutch video . It seemed to me the ball moving in a circle was experiencing increased friction as a result of the centrifugal force pushing it deeper into the soft plastic tube,hence slowing it down . If that's the case , repeating the experiment with glass tube should get the expected result.
oz93666
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat May 20, 2017 6:46 am

oz93666 wrote:I've only just discovered this guy ...working my way through his enormous output ..

At first glance he appears to be onboard with many EU ideas ..

Is anyone familiar with his work , and would like to give an assessment?


I am okay with new ideas and huge outputs of creative thinking and outright saying things that are flat wrong (as that might lead to new ideas), but being disingenuous is sobering for me. He is like a fictional fantasy creature that has no place in modern lemming follow type mainstream communities. While they have huge bureaucracies and all do the same song and dance like vast country western bars doing line-dancing, he's skipping around and poking people in the eyeballs.

He wants a circus atmosphere, but does not admit that is what he wants. He worships chaos and disorganization in his mind, but does not admit it to his listeners, so they stay tuned to what he says without informing them that his methods and ideas have no point or rhyme, or practical foundation.

For mainstream scientists who read his articles, they reject out of hand because they do not have the patience or skills to decipher his motivations. What they do is pick the most outrageous statements and then dismiss everything that is said based on those statements alone. But that is not the type of beast he is.

He likes his tornado persona more than building something that has staying power. His disingenuous nature stems from giving the appearance that his is trying to build a theory with his "charge field", but the complete opposite is true. He is just publicly airing out flights of thought looking for something new and interesting. Like a construction worker trying to build a house by throwing random metal pieces, bricks and windows into a big pile. He is an artist at heart. Sure, he probably has some good ideas in there, but its surrounded by so much clutter and chaos it might not be worth the effort in pulling it out and brushing it off.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat May 20, 2017 4:43 pm

My experience with MM was originally interesting and entertaining, like that of Mr. Archer, but ultimately frustrating, like that of Jeffrey W. He is undeniably well educated, intelligent, and extremely creative. However, he doesn't seem to have any kind of practical end in mind. He doesn't seem to have a need to improve science for the sake of science but sees it as a platform from which to entertain increasingly grandiose assertions about reality.

Myself having major disagreements with standard models about H bonding in water and its significance, I came across MM's writing because he too has differences with the standard model of H bonding in water. I eventually came to the realization that he rejected the standard notion of H bonding in water not because of any kind of substantive issue. In other words, he was not pointing to any evidence and saying that his model better explained the evidence than does the standard model. Instead he rejected the standard model for reasons that seem dogmatic and then went on to explain how his model, supposedly, did a better job of reconciling H bonding. But it seems he never got around to showing us how his model provided any kind of practical benefit.



James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 82#p117062
Excerpt:
And so, a model of water structure was forming in my mind. Liquid water—below the surface—was fluid because the prevalence of H bonds was, somehow, associated with a prevalence of polarity neutralization below the surface. The hard bonds associated with the surface of liquid water—this being ”surface tension”—were hard bonds because the relative scarcity of H bonds along the surface is, somehow, associated with a relative scarcity of polarity neutralization along the surface. And so, this allowed me to consider it—surface tension—as being an implication of the restricted bonding imposed by the two dimensions of a surface. I even allowed myself to speculate that ice might be explicable as a three dimensional form of surface tension—a form of surface tension on steroids. Accordingly, the freezing process caused the breaking of ‘weak’ H bonds, just like the grains of corn starch did for the non-Newtonian fluids (wit pressure applied, man). Which begs the question, what is causing the ‘weak’ bonds to break since there are no starch molecules in pure water? The answer to this question, I envisioned, might involve some kind of mechanical implication associated with the way H2O molecules fit into and fold against each other under low energy conditions. Somehow, I assumed, they become entangled and begin prying between each other, forcing the breaking of weak bonds which, of course, de-neutralizes (activates) polarity, producing strong bonds in their vicinity. (Interestingly, this model allows us to describe the sharpness of the transition between the relatively low viscosity of liquid H2O before it freezes and the solidity of the ice after if freezes as being a consequence of the de-neutralization [activation] of polarity that had been neutralized [dormant] in the liquid stage.) Also, this model does a pretty good job describing the lower density of ice as being a result of the surface created within.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat May 20, 2017 8:02 pm

I think the following link is a pretty fair assessment of MM.

speed/time and re: Miles Mathis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpLpeInpa1c&t=167s

I think this guys name is Gary Immendham. He discusses some of the same subjects as MM, but he seems much more focused.

Very interesting. I think I've watched about 20 of his videos now.

Draftscience
https://www.youtube.com/user/DraftScience

https://plus.google.com/u/0/105259550514997707782

In some of his videos he discusses a larger theory--kind of a unification theory. It is somewhat outside my realm of expertise but it appears to be well presented.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby oz93666 » Sun May 21, 2017 7:29 pm

Thank -you all for your thoughts... all of you have made great points and and plenty of links for me to look into ..

I see we already have a MM thread which I'm also examining...

It's seem MM is certainly a genius in the classical sense , excelling in music , art and science , just his output is overwhelming , where does he get the enthusiasm and energy???

But there are also many many simplistic errors , that a well educated school boy could spot !!! In science we have to get back to experimental verification ... this will clear the smoke of many pipe dreams .
oz93666
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon May 22, 2017 6:18 am

oz93666 wrote:Thank -you all for your thoughts... all of you have made great points and and plenty of links for me to look into ..

I see we already have a MM thread which I'm also examining...

It's seem MM is certainly a genius in the classical sense , excelling in music , art and science , just his output is overwhelming , where does he get the enthusiasm and energy???

But there are also many many simplistic errors , that a well educated school boy could spot !!! In science we have to get back to experimental verification ... this will clear the smoke of many pipe dreams .


Well educated is part of the problem, this is what mainstream science has, "well educated" people, new insights and progress in science only comes from mavericks as history has proven (and EU proponents)

So are they errors? or new insights by not accepting the current "status quo"..this is why you really have to thoroughly read Mathis, some of his early papers are on the use of the 'point' in mathematics, it does not exist in reality although most math mainstream assumes it to be a reality (or uses it as something real/discrete) , skewing all their math.. such a simple observation is what makes Mathis enjoyable to read...

---

As for his energy, this took a long time to write, it is about a few articles every month, not really that much if you can really write and he works as a professional portrait artist...

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby querious » Wed May 31, 2017 8:18 pm

oz93666 wrote: But there are also many many simplistic errors , that a well educated school boy could spot !!! In science we have to get back to experimental verification ... this will clear the smoke of many pipe dreams .


Agreed, Mathis is FULL of simplistic errors. The only reason to read his stuff lies in the entertainment value of seeing what kind of crazy stuff someone with little knowledge of science comes up with as explanations for well known phenomena. Knid of like asking a kid why the sky is blue and forcing them to come up with something.

Actually, there's one other reason. Reading his crazy stuff but not knowing it's crazy, thinking it's brilliant, and thinking of yourself as brilliant for having discovered such a brilliant person, who sticks it to the man. The lame satisfaction that comes with possessing psuedo-knowledge. The people running that idiotic ARK thing in Kentucky know what I'm talking about.
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:31 am

querious wrote:
oz93666 wrote: But there are also many many simplistic errors , that a well educated school boy could spot !!! In science we have to get back to experimental verification ... this will clear the smoke of many pipe dreams .


Agreed, Mathis is FULL of simplistic errors. The only reason to read his stuff lies in the entertainment value of seeing what kind of crazy stuff someone with little knowledge of science comes up with as explanations for well known phenomena. Knid of like asking a kid why the sky is blue and forcing them to come up with something.

Actually, there's one other reason. Reading his crazy stuff but not knowing it's crazy, thinking it's brilliant, and thinking of yourself as brilliant for having discovered such a brilliant person, who sticks it to the man. The lame satisfaction that comes with possessing psuedo-knowledge. The people running that idiotic ARK thing in Kentucky know what I'm talking about.


Well, you are a known interloper and with such a vapid comment we also do not have to take you seriously at all.

But that is what you do it for , to just get a reaction.

For something interesting and completely something else, but might be interesting to a lot of readers here, in the context of Miles Mathis and other 'mavericks' consider the work 'Eureka' by Edgar Allan Poe >

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/eureka.html

Wonderful, that is what it all is, we are free to think and wonder and say 'stuff' , people trying to put down other people....well...

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:35 am

querious wrote:
oz93666 wrote: But there are also many many simplistic errors , that a well educated school boy could spot !!! In science we have to get back to experimental verification ... this will clear the smoke of many pipe dreams .


Agreed, Mathis is FULL of simplistic errors. The only reason to read his stuff lies in the entertainment value of seeing what kind of crazy stuff someone with little knowledge of science comes up with as explanations for well known phenomena. Knid of like asking a kid why the sky is blue and forcing them to come up with something.

Actually, there's one other reason. Reading his crazy stuff but not knowing it's crazy, thinking it's brilliant, and thinking of yourself as brilliant for having discovered such a brilliant person, who sticks it to the man. The lame satisfaction that comes with possessing psuedo-knowledge. The people running that idiotic ARK thing in Kentucky know what I'm talking about.


I agree too.
But it is clear that many people are not seeing this.
I think that a part of this is caused by the bad education in the US.

But also the writing style of Mathis.
He usually begins with the idea that science is wrong on this or that.
He picks out a few observations that he thinks are wrong, and sometimes I agree with only this part.
He adds some assertions that are often wrong themselves.
He goes on explaining why science is wrong, using these assertions.
Then he shows an alternative, derived from his own magic.
And tells that this is the true answer, but does not go deeper into them,
nor does he check his answers. He just uses them again to add even more strange ideas.

The logic is usually circular. In the sense that he uses his own assertions to "proof" his own ideas.
He also makes some big mistakes in math (like pi=4) and in physics.
Miles: "I define PI as the length of this curve, so PI=4."
Maths: "But PI is circumference of a circle."
Miles: "If you make a circle with little squares you also get 4."
Maths: "But that is a square!"
Instead of correcting these mistakes, he uses these mistakes to create even wilder ideas.
So PI=4 becomes proof for some other strange idea that he has.
Most "evidence" for his ideas comes from saying that the mainstream science is wrong.
Mathis: "They are wrong, so I am right".
Usually half or more of his "proof" is devoted to this part.
Or "evidence" is provided by just describing the model.
Mathis: "Light is made of particles, and these particles break apart on longer distances,
creating other phenomena. These particles cause magnetism, gravity, etc."
It is like saying "god did all this", where god is replaced with particles.
You can generally not explain complete different things with the same mechanism,
that is mathematically impossible.

If you can look at it generally, you can see how his logic goes worse and worse.
But if you try to follow each step separately, it is harder.
Especially when you think that he might be right, and try to understand his false logic.
You get the idea, but do not seem to understand it completely.
If you understand it, you would see that it is wrong. But if you can not understand
it completely, you will think that there is some kind of truth to it.

And that is where Miles excels: to create ideas that you get. He pulls you into his
way of thinking, which starts to make you believe that he is correct.
If only you could understand it better.

But if you would really understand it, you can see that he was totally wrong in his logic.
Almost each part of his story makes no sense at all,
and his assertions are usually all wrong.
You will realize that his "logic" is a way of trolling.

If well educated in physics and maths, you will not fall for Miles' stories.
But if you are not sure about physics or maths or logic, Miles' logic can get to you.

This sadly causes a divide in this forum.
That is why I put forward that Miles' work, without some form of scepticism,
is actually a way of Trolling.

Maybe you think that is not fair, or maybe you like him personally or his writing.
Most of us are already sceptical of the mainstream sciences,
so why not be sceptical of Miles too.
With some form of scepticism he may start to correct his own work.

I think that partially the cause is bad education.
But you nowadays, can educate yourself well on all subjects on youtube:
Follow some lectures by Walter Lewin.
He is a very good teacher.
To all: Don't be afraid of learning basic physics or maths.
Learn some mainstream theories even if you don't fully agree with them.
This can help you to compare the different theories of physical phenomena and
help you to explain (your) theories better.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:17 am

.
oz93666 wrote.
I've only just discovered this guy ...working my way through his enormous output ..

At first glance he appears to be onboard with many EU ideas ..

Is anyone familiar with his work , and would like to give an assessment?

Airman. Among other things, Miles Mathis has recognized a new basis for physics, the charge field. The charge field consists of real, spinning photons with radii on the order of 10E-24m or larger. The presence of photons within empty space create a sort of aether. All matter is created from photons; all matter is constantly recycling photons. The charge field is always in opposition to gravity, together, they make a unified field.

Reading Miles Mathis’ work has enabled me to understand mainstream physics far more than I could have ever hoped otherwise. Miles does a wonderful job of describing how the charge field works. He’s taken hundreds of contemporary discoveries, explanations or historical examples and shown how the charge field explains things in simpler mechanical terms. Without benefit of the charge field, scientific advances have often relied on hidden heuristic underpinnings.

For example, I think we can all agree - gravity alone cannot explain how the universe operates. The Electric Universe believes in the fundamental importance of electromagnetism. Photons traveling and spinning at light speed are the basis for electromagnetic fields.

Of course, these ideas are radically different from the contemporary mainstream physics. It seems a bit shocking to me that a few individuals here apparently believe Miles is a threat to mainstream or a threat to their own thinking. I've tried engaging them with honest discussion, but my arguments fall short, and they grow louder. Listen to them, they would save us from him. Reject Miles - banish Miles! It's enough to make me consider conspiracy theories.

Thanks for asking. I’m happy to share.
.
LongtimeAirman
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:10 am

I love Miles. I've been reading him for about two years now. Read most of papers twice and several of them several times. So I feel kind of obligated to put my experience here.

At first, much of what he is saying was hard for me. I kept going because he was at least teaching me more about mainstream physics than mainstream dare to teach. Eventually his general theory slowly came together for me, and for the greater part of it appears to make good logical sense, to me. But so much of it is impossible for me to verify too.

Anyhow, after grounding myself in his theory, I returned to some of what I consider the basic papers, his explanation of magnetism, and the battery wire circuit. I began using the powers of critical analysis which I learned from Mathis on his own papers, and found them wanting. Now I have doubt on some of those things I cannot verify.

Still, I have no regret. Mathis has taught me a lot, and taught me well. He also inspired me to look at physics again, a passion that was squashed when I was in school.

A good way to express myself on Mathis is to answer Zyxzevn's comments, point by point.

But also the writing style of Mathis.
Content is more important than style. That said, Mathis has a very accessible style, though he does presume the reader has some basic knowledge of physics (or can research it), he doesn't baffle with terminology and incomprehensible math.

He usually begins with the idea that science is wrong on this or that.
He only writes on topics where he feels he has something to add.

He picks out a few observations that he thinks are wrong, and sometimes I agree with only this part.
Mathis picks the historical problems in the field of physics, and works on solving them.

He adds some assertions that are often wrong themselves.
He generally explains well, why he asserts the things he does.

He goes on explaining why science is wrong, using these assertions.
He has a theory which he uses to solve problems. Mathis himself admits he doesn't have all the answers, and that his answers may even be wrong, but his charge field does solve many problems in physics, even if it isn't exactly how he hypothesizes.

And, in this he is in complete agreement with EU proponents, who also say science is denying charge.

Then he shows an alternative, derived from his own magic.
Mathis shows an alternative based upon his charge field and unified field theories.

If you disagree with his theories, call them magic. But I say they far less magic than virtual particles, and borrowing from the vacuum, and many such things sold to us by Science today, imo.

And tells that this is the true answer, but does not go deeper into them,
He often says, he is just proposing ideas. He never claims he is the be all and end all, that I have seen.

His papers always have links to other related papers, if you want to go deeper. Many topics he has two or more papers, to cover depth.

nor does he check his answers.
Now I think you might have a point.
I do now feel he is so prolific, he has pushed some papers out too fast with not enough review.

One thing though, many papers do have addendums added to them later.

He just uses them again to add even more strange ideas.
If some of the basic postulates of a theory are not accepted, then anything built on those theories will appear strange.

I do this thing where I "try it on".
In order to give something a fair hearing, and assessment.

The logic is usually circular. In the sense that he uses his own assertions to "proof" his own ideas.
Mathis is always using the data and numbers from mainstream science. Those numbers are what confirms his math, and therefore his theory, for him.

He also makes some big mistakes in math (like pi=4) and in physics.
If it is a mistake.

As someone pointed out in the topic A Simple Experiment Proves π = 4, that pi = 4 has actually been know for a few hundred years, and Mathis was merely rediscovering it. (After he wrote his first paper, or papers, on pi = 4, it was pointed out to him. He added it in an addendum on one of his pi papers.)

Miles: "I define PI as the length of this curve, so PI=4."
Maths: "But PI is circumference of a circle."
Miles: "If you make a circle with little squares you also get 4."
Maths: "But that is a square!"
A ridiculous dialog. Maths has not spoken to anyone like that.
We can only presume, where you wrote "Maths:" you really mean "Zyxzevn:".

And Mathis doesn't change pi for geometry.

Instead of correcting these mistakes, he uses these mistakes to create even wilder ideas.
What you call his mistake, is his correction. He isn't going to correct something he doesn't believe is a mistake.

So PI=4 becomes proof for some other strange idea that he has.
What idea is that?

Most "evidence" for his ideas comes from saying that the mainstream science is wrong.
As mentioned before, he uses the data published by the mainstream, and explains why he considers the mainstream interpretation to be wrong, and then gives his interpretation.

I think his is a smashing good writing style. If only mainstream physics papers were always so clear.

Mathis: "They are wrong, so I am right".
Usually half or more of his "proof" is devoted to this part.
Or "evidence" is provided by just describing the model.
No, Mathis doesn't say that. He says why considers mainstream wrong, and proposes an alternative, which invariably is better theory, "even if I am not right", says he.

Mathis: "Light is made of particles, and these particles break apart on longer distances,
creating other phenomena. These particles cause magnetism, gravity, etc."
It is like saying "god did all this", where god is replaced with particles.
You can generally not explain complete different things with the same mechanism,
that is mathematically impossible.
You replaced his theory, which is actually very comprehensive and well thought out, with a false summation, and then liken what he is doing to something evil.

That is not a scientific rebuttal of his theory.
But we do get it, that you disagree with his theory.

If you can look at it generally, you can see how his logic goes worse and worse.
I found the opposite. When I could look at it specifically, I could see how his logic comes together, and has a better chance of being right than any other theory I have heard.

But if you try to follow each step separately, it is harder.
It was hard. I did have to apply myself.

But I imagine it could have been so much harder, if I had a naysayer in my head yelling "wrong" all the while I was trying to read him.

Especially when you think that he might be right, and try to understand his false logic.
Maybe you only call his logic false, because you failed to understand.

Have you considered that?

You get the idea, but do not seem to understand it completely.
When I reached that point, I read some more.
And I still won't say I completely understand.

If you understand it, you would see that it is wrong.
Most that see that it is wrong haven't understood it.

This becomes obvious when they criticize Mathis.

But if you can not understand
it completely, you will think that there is some kind of truth to it.
You fall prey to your own accusations.
It is you who is claiming a complete understanding, not Mathis.

And that is where Miles excels: to create ideas that you get. He pulls you into his
way of thinking, which starts to make you believe that he is correct.
If only you could understand it better.
Mathis takes us through his process of discovery with every paper. He openly shows us his method of operation, and encourages us to do the same. He never claims to be correct, but often says he is just putting forward ideas that need to be worked on and improved. He writes with an openness and honesty that is hard to find these days.

But if you would really understand it, you can see that he was totally wrong in his logic.
Almost each part of his story makes no sense at all,
and his assertions are usually all wrong.
You will realize that his "logic" is a way of trolling.
You troll hard against him. And you only convince yourself, that you are the one with complete understanding.

If well educated in physics and maths, you will not fall for Miles' stories.
If well educated in physics and maths, there is a high probability of having been brainwashed by the mainstream.

Plenty of the well educated believe in black holes, and dark matter, and magnetic reconnection. As you know.

But if you are not sure about physics or maths or logic, Miles' logic can get to you.
Well, maybe in your mind, I am got to.

But I see that is just a troll too, when you strive to sow a seed of doubt rather than make a scientific argument.

This sadly causes a divide in this forum.
All the things you criticized Mathis for, are tenets of EU. We all here at this forum take what we think are wrong articles published by mainstream, and propose our EU alternatives. We all here have skeptical minds against mainstream's conceptions and theories. We all here have pet theories, and make up our own. And we all have disagreements. Which doesn't necessarily divide us.

Differing electric Sun models is a bigger divider in this forum.

That is why I put forward that Miles' work, without some form of scepticism,
is actually a way of Trolling.
Mathis does criticize mainstream theories, and does talk of his disgust at the state of art of science today, but he doesn't spend his time trolling people.

In a couple of papers he does criticize another person's proposed alternative theory, but always graciously. Though he may disagree with their theory, he still credits them for giving a go, and concedes those points where he is in agreement.

Maybe you think that is not fair, or maybe you like him personally or his writing.
It would be fairer if you disseminated some of your "complete" understanding in a manner which address some of those points that you footstompingly called incorrect, wrong, or mistake.

It would give those of us whom you say got got something substantial to consider.

Most of us are already sceptical of the mainstream sciences,
so why not be sceptical of Miles too.
I am. While I love Miles, and his theory, I keep an open mind.
In fact, I too believe I see errors in his work, but I will not condemn the man for that.

With some form of scepticism he may start to correct his own work.
I've actually started to write up some "corrections" to a couple of his papers. When I am ready, I am thinking to email them to him. I am still working towards a more complete understanding myself.

I think that partially the cause is bad education.
With this I agree. At school I was made to feel dumb for not understanding relativity and for continuing to ask questions that I might understand it. And frowned at, for not believing in infinite densities in zero volumes.

But you nowadays, can educate yourself well on all subjects on youtube:
Follow some lectures by Walter Lewin.
He is a very good teacher.
After all you have said of my good teacher, why would I go to your teacher?
Won't I become a troll too?

To all: Don't be afraid of learning basic physics or maths.
All well and said.
Every time I tried, I only got confused by all the spin.
I wanted to understand basic things, like electricity and magnetism, but the science teachers only want us to leap into back holes, where they reside.

And this is one good thing that can be said for Mathis. By the time you do get through his papers, you will have a good grounding in physics, and a better understanding of maths. Even if his theories are not correct, he does much to unwind the spin. Unless, of course, you believe your understanding is already complete. Then, to you, Mathis is just more spin.

Learn some mainstream theories even if you don't fully agree with them.
Mathis takes you through them all. Admittedly, from his perspective (how else can one write? - you try and do it from a perspective other than your own). Still, he gives comprehensive histories, showing how mainstream ended up with the theories and equations it has today.

This can help you to compare the different theories of physical phenomena and
help you to explain (your) theories better.
After criticizing Mathis for explaining his theories... you want us to do better?

And when we explain (our) theories, will you speak as kindly of us, as you do of Miles?

~
To sum up, I don't believe Mathis is correct in all his theories, may even be well off the mark in some places. But, if you keep a skeptical and open mind (which one aught to do no matter who they are reading), then there is no harm in reading Mathis, and much to gain.

The other thing you will notice about Mathis, is that he has detractors that feel the need to condemn the man, and call his theories wrong. Yet for all the posts and websites I have read debunking Mathis, I believe I have found more real errors his work than all of them combined have presented. I haven't read any convincing rebuttals of any of the ideas he proposes. Not one. His detractors tend to think we will simply understand how Mathis is wrong, or his errors will just become obvious, once we have their "complete" understanding. All of which tends to indicate to me that Mathis is onto something.

Now, will this be thread where we offer actual rebuttals to ideas put forth by Mathis? For I do have a couple of points of contention with him, which I would like to discuss, in a civil and scientific manner. Not sure if this is the place, or even if it is within the rules of this forum.

Miles my man
Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jimmcginn and 2 guests