Gottlieb680 wrote: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?.
Gottlieb680 wrote: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..
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..
Gottlieb680 wrote: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)..
Gottlieb680 wrote: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.
As long as the Pi=4 theory is posted at his web site, then it is fair game; all I am doing is putting a spotlight on it. You Mathis supporters seem a bit thin-skinned; I would have thought you’d be delighted that I quote the new Leonardo verbatim. With that said, here is yet another quote from the ballet dancer turned physicist:
..in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep π for that.
Now, I have never claimed that the calculus is wrong, in toto. Newton was right about most things, and the calculus is a true and useful algorithm, used correctly. It works great on geometric curves, and it can be used to find π in a geometric circle. It solves one of the problems Newton wanted to solve. But as it is used now, it does not solve the problem of physical circles, because physical circles are not geometric circles
If so, then why no response when I pointed out your error regarding GPS clocks on page 3?Gottlieb680 wrote:#5... Unlike Mathis I would defend my own ideas myself and not leave it to others. I would not hide and avoid admitting errors.
Aardwolf wrote:The clocks ran faster in orbit.Gottlieb680 wrote:The clock, most notably, did indeed run slower just as the theory predicted and the satellites which were launched later had clocks which incorporated a correction factor of something like 30 milliseconds per 24 hours.
BM says: PS. I'm seeing a lot of good points in this thread going completely ignored, and the above will probably go that way as well. For anyone who would dismiss these simple questions even without so much as acknowledging them...merely because they challenge your hero's base-level competence...you should be ashamed to call yourself a thinker.
Maybe you can explain why, out of hundreds of "papers," NONE of the following make a single appearance (and please correct me if I'm wrong):
1. A partial derivative problem—critical in situations with more than one variable, i.e., the real world.
2. An integral problem—absolutely necessary for calculating areas, curve lengths, etc. (Amazing how Mathis doesn't even touch integration. Maybe because it proves that calculus actually works?)
3. A differential equation—as any engineer knows, many real-world mechanical situations with interacting systems are described by them, and they are ubiquitous in physics—but NOWHERE on Mathis' site. Bizarre.
...neither Einstein nor string theory has presented a simple unified field equation. As time has passed this has seemed more and more difficult to achieve, and more and more difficult math has been brought in to attack the problem. But it turns out the answer was always out of reach because the question was wrong.
Shouldn’t all engineering be impossible with errors of this magnitude? Shouldn’t all of our machines immediately break and crash? Not necessarily. Because we make the same mistakes in all our equations, the equations are correct relative to each other.
Mass is not a fundamental characteristic, like density or volume is. To know a mass, you have to know both a density and a volume.
Mass is tied not to the radius or the velocity of the radius, it is tied to the acceleration of the radius.
bill miller wrote:I haven't read all or even most of Mathis' articles, but I am curious at how he would approach integrals or differential equations, if you have a link for those. I didn't see any in the article you linked..
bill miller wrote:IYou know, the first time I came across Mathis and his articles, I got excited. I thought he had found some really interesting things. But it didn't take long to start spotting the inconsistencies throughout, like the above. I'm just glad I'm not someone whose willingness to believe a person scales with my desire to believe.
hertz wrote:indeed the pi=4 papers are some of his most interesting (think there's 3 of them, or is it 4, lol) and it's a bit surprising that even here they're treated somewhat skeptically...
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests