Miles Mathis

[seasmith]

GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY
http://milesmathis.com/gut.html

If i may bump past the book reviews and convolutions of mathematical syntax for a moment, back to his actual ideas, by quoting from his November 03 Update:

A successful GUT would combine not only the current theories, but the current maths. Well, I certainly can't claim to have done that, since I have shown that two of those forces don't even exist. I have ditched the strong force as unnecessary, since we have no data indicating that the E/M field exists in the nucleus. The strong force was postulated to counteract E/M in the nucleus, but a better theory is that it does not exist there. I have shown mechanically and logically why it wouldn't exist there, so all the work done on the strong force has just been busywork. This works out well, since the strong force is the most tenuous of the four. The math and theory underlying the strong force are razor thin, and very little is lost in jettisoning it.

The same can be said for the weak force. Although something is going on with the weak force, and it hasn't been made up from whole cloth like the strong force, it turns out that current theory was right to backslide into electroweak theory. The weak force was initially sold as an independent force of nature, but after the Nobel Prizes were awarded, the theorists admitted that the weak force was probably just a comrade of E/M. They were right in that. The weak force isn't a force at all, it is just a fluctuation in the E/M field seen in certain collisions (beta “decay”, kaon decay and so on). It is a variation in the charge field, and of course the charge field is E/M. The charge field is photons, and the variation seen in so-called weak interactions is mediated by photons directly.

As photons are light, and unequivocally have mass says Mathis, and light has been proposed earlier as the nascent phase of an aetheric circuit; i will also submit a paragraph from his "How a Photon Travels:

Some will say that I am assuming a longitudinal wave for light, whereas Fresnel proved that light has a transverse wave. If I am able to multiply my local spin wavelength by c2 to get a visible wavelength, my local wave must be longitudinal. But that is not correct. Since the wave of light belongs to each photon, via spin, the wave is neither longitudinal nor transverse. Longitudinal and transverse waves are defined as field waves, and light is not a field wave. Light is a spin wave, and the spin is neither transverse nor longitudinal. The local wavelength is just a radius of spin. However, since I have shown (in my paper on superposition) that any electromagnetic radiation must have at least two stacked spins to show a physical wave, this stacking can mimic either transverse or longitudinal waves, depending on the experiment and the effect studied. Fresnel was studying polarization, and although Young had already shown both longitudinal characteristics and transverse characteristics, the polarization experiments seemed to confirm only the transverse part of this duality. And, indeed, polarization can be explained with only the transverse characteristics of the stacked wave. Other experiments and effects are better explained as the stacked spins mimicking longitudinal waves. This is what is happening with Tesla or plasma waves which are longitudinal. In plasmas, the spins beneath the outer spin come into play, and the axial spin of the moving electron is no longer hidden. The charge field coheres or links these inner spins, creating uncommon effects. At any rate, wave theory will not advance beyond its current wall unless it comes to see that both transverse and longitudinal waves are a misconception, built upon a mistaken field wave theory that is an analogue of fluid or sound dynamics. Light waves are not field waves, they are spin waves. Light is its own field, since light is both the linear motion and the spin motion of the photon.

http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html

~ What could be simpler ?

s

[SleestackVII]

Sponsoredwalk,

I want to first acknowledge the fact that I was being presumptuous about your first reading of the Kinetic Energy paper by Mr. Mathis.

http://milesmathis.com/kinetic.html

You have stated that you did not read his paper with a bias against him.

My apologies.

But when I tried to explain what I thought the main thrust of his paper was by spelling out very specifically step by step what Mathis' was saying you seemed to dismiss it. You didn't want to even discuss it.


The very first paragraph of Mathis' paper begins:

“Here’s a question not many ask: why is the velocity squared in the kinetic energy equation, E = ½mv2. Why should the energy depend on the square of the velocity? We have the same question with the equation E = mc2. Einstein was nice enough to provide us with this simple equation, but not nice enough to tell us why the energy depends on the square of the speed of light.”



So it shouldn't surprise you that these issues might come up or that I might mention Mathis' answer to this question.



Mathis' answer:

“In my paper on photon motion, I showed that the measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2. Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence the equation E = mc2. In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.”

Then he generalizes the idea to include matter as well as
photons,


“The same analysis can be applied to any object. The energy of any object is determined by summing the energies of its constituent atomic and quantum particles, and all these particles also have spins. The quanta will impart this spin energy in collision, so this spin energy must be included in the total kinetic energy.”




This is the main thesis of his paper yet you accuse me of creating a phantom argument by including this information. How is Mathis' main theory of real spinning quanta and the stretching of this wavelength due to velocity, (which is covered by at least half of his paper), irrelevant to the paper we are discussing?

Is it misrepresented in any way?

Have I misrepresented your arguments?

Oh, and about the ΔE discussion from our previous posts I do have to make an apology...

...to Mr. Mathis for saying he may be a sloppy typist.

I realized that in fact there should be no ΔE in the equation after all.
My reasoning is simple. Deltas (Δ) are used in differential equations not simple identities. If you recall Mathis goes into this quite extensively when he talks about his correction to the calculus.

http://milesmathis.com/calcsimp.html

take a look at the table about half way down the paper.

So the ΔE would be used appropriately in the Kinetic Energy equation if it was in differential form like this:


ΔE = ½mvf2 - ½mvi2


vf being the final velocity of the object...

vi being the initial velocity of the object...



This is the only way you would have a correct result for the change in kinetic energy.

However, the following is how Mathis includes the equation above in the quote at the top of this post.


E = ½mv2


So I have reevaluated this issue and now see that Miles did not forget his delta after all because it wasn't even necessary. He is simply talking about the intrinsic kinetic energy of an object or particle in this reference and not the change in kinetic energy.

[sponsoredwalk]

First of all I acknowledge that I have nothing to say about what you consider to be the main tenet of his paper.
I can't speak about these parts of his paper because I know nothing about it apart from a superficial
acquaintance with the ideas. I'd make a fool of myself if I were to try to speak on these matters and have no
interest in doing so.

Notice I questioned the things that Mathis uses as his motivating factors for justifying his conclusions and you
have not justified anything Mathis wrote in any of your responses. Notice I accused you of creating phantom
arguments because you responded to my criticisms by talking about the parts of Mathis paper I explicitly ignored.
This is the third post in which you've devoted considerable portions to justifying Mathis' arguments about
photons & spin wavelengths when I have said nothing about these matters. It is irrelevant to me whether or not
his conclusions mean anything because the things I understand, his foundational justifications, are erroneous.
He has made no inkling of a convincing argument that our textbooks are wrong, that wikipedia is the
arbiter of propaganda or anything, all we've seen is flawed assumptions on what the equations mean and then
derivations of far-reaching conclusions based on an erroneous foundation. I can't show his conclusions are
incorrect but it stands to reason that they are justifiable suspect if the logic they are built on is ridiculous, still it
matters not to me whether or not this is the case I'm only interested in why my book is supposedly lying to me.

I realized that in fact there should be no ΔE in the equation after all.
My reasoning is simple. Deltas (Δ) are used in differential equations not simple identities. If you recall
Mathis goes into this quite extensively when he talks about his correction to the calculus.

Honestly, is this a joke? Do you seriously not even understand what Δ means in this context? Maybe that would
explain why you are arguing with me. Δ in this context merely means change. I refer you to page 173 of
the 8th edition of Fundamentals of Physics, Halliday, Resnick, Walker, to see this explicitly derived in the
case of energy but this is primary school stuff tbh...
Δx = x₂ - x₁
ΔK.E. = K₂ - K₁
W = F•d = = K.E.₂ - K.E.₁ = ΔK.E. = ½mv₂² - ½mv₁² = ΔE = E₂ - E₁

You see how Δ is used? Nobody is invoking differential equations, nobody is even talking about identites,
the Δ is just a shorthand notation to save me writing everything out explicitly. I thought you understood
what I meant when I referred to the Δ but obviously not. Re-read my posts and notice that everytime I
use the symbol Δ I am referring, in a shorthand/lazy way, to the fact that Mathis forgets to account for
the change in energy. The whole equation is describing the change in energy, this equation says nothing
about a bodies normal energy other than the fact it is described by ½mv₁².
Now, with that knowledge Mathis arguments might be clearer, i.e. when he uses the argument that a moving
body that hits you applies a force whether or not it accelerates. The body has the energy stored in it that
got it moving in the first place, this example of his, along with his photon example do nothing to aid his
argument seeing as they both have extremely different explanations, one grounded in quantum mechanics
& the other (almost) perfectly described by the equation he calls misderived, (barring relativistic considerations) .


Another thing I want to point out:

Let me put it another way. If vf = vi , then the postulate equation becomes

2ad = vf2 - vi2 = 0

2Fd/m = 0

E = Fd = 0

You cannot postulate an acceleration in order to develop an equation, and then dump the acceleration. The equations that come after the first equation depend on the first equation. You cannot have different assumptions in the postulate equation and the derived equations.

Mathis claim that the equations that come after the first dump an acceleration is unbelievable. It's so similar to
that proof 2 = 1 in that there is such an easy explanation for all of this but you can go to crazy conclusions if you
do not recognise it. Mathis doesn't realise there is no acceleration on the left hand side, the thing is zero to
begin with. He's just playing with the number zero straight away, before he substitutes F/m for a, nobody
has switched any postulates.
2•a•d = vf2 - vi2
2•0•d = vf2 - vi2
0 = vf2 - vi2
vf2 = vi2

is equivalent to

2ad = vf2 - vi2 = 0
2Fd/m = 0
E = Fd = 0

But to Mathis this sole numerical justification of his gives him enough impetus to construct all of his conclusions, One single equation, with the rest is embedded in his language, is enough for Mathis here. Seeing as the
derivation he is supposedly proving to be misdirected factors in far more than what he's written it
stands to reason he is having a laugh. I'm afraid to ask Mathis about potential energy, I mean the
derivation he gives at the start of the paper is something he labels as energy but he never
lets us know what kind, kinetic, potential, mechanical? What kind of clarity is this?

What makes this worse is that when there is an initial velocity in the equation you must, by definition,
include the Δ because the whole equation he is deriving is an equation that tells you the change in
kinetic energy, and the change in mechanical energy (but there is no potential energy term in Mathis
gedankenexperiment or I would have included it). It is forgivable for Mathis to neglect the Δ when he
has set the initial velocity equal to zero, like he does in the first derivation in his paper that is merely
an explanatory derivation of what is to come, but when he derives the one equation that forms the
basis for his conclusions he neglects the Δ that answers his whole concern, because a = 0 the equation
is equal to zero before he got started and there is no change of energy in the system.

So I have reevaluated this issue and now see that Miles did not forget his delta after all because it wasn't even necessary. He is simply talking about the intrinsic kinetic energy of an object or particle in this reference and not the change in kinetic energy.

Yes, as I pointed out in my first post. The fact that Mathis confuses the whole equation as being one that
describes intrinsic kinetic energy instead of one that describes the change in kinetic energy is the source of his
error, I'm glads you see this. To clarify, the proof Mathis does this is when he equated kinetic energy to Fd
and when he makes statements such as "But the current kinetic energy equation has no change in velocity.
A particle has kinetic energy with a constant velocity. If the kinetic energy equation is developed from an
acceleration, it means the energy depends on the acceleration. The particle should have kinetic energy only
while it is being accelerated..." and calling the wikipedia explanation absurd.
Equating Fd to Kinetic energy is, by definition, a description of the change in kinetic energy. The misdirected
textbooks clearly state the distinction here, if you dont understand that W = Fd (Work equals force times distance) says nothing about intrinsic kinetic energy, nothing whatsoever, you don't know what you're talking
about, (Not you personally, just trying to convey the importance of W = Fd as being an equation
explicitly dependent on changing quantities) and Mathis confusing these is the source of his error.

[seasmith]

Now let's look at Mathis' very brief and very mechanical picture of photonic quanta scaling up to electron form:

Still, how can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons? The short answer is that it is not emitting them, it is re-emitting them. As the photon gather spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine. The spins allow it to trap other photons. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons. It is now an electron. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

http://milesmathis.com/meson.html
So it is here a matter of quadratic geometries which determine if an energy form is stable, transitional or transforming.

In a three-dimensional schematic, the a and y vectors would not in fact line up. The illustration here is a useful visualization in some ways, but it is not complete or completely accurate.]

In fact, the four primary vectors (axial, x,y and z spins) can point any which way, as long as they are Orthogonal.
In addition, as MM points out repeatedly, there is most often a component of propagating velocity, thus giving rise to Wave forms .
However there is always an inherent axial ~'spin', which with all due respect has sponseredwalks's long discourses on the nuanced differences between kinetic delta E , velocity and acceleration
end up being a lot of hand-waving.

Mathis so far hasn't spent a lot of time on the nature of intrinsic photon "axial spin", but scaling down, one could suspect a repeating quadratic type form/function that may graph out (in 3D) as a volumetric Lissajous type figure,
which on one quarter of its cycle, is out of our 3D frame of spatial reference.

(2D representation)

[SleestackVII]

to sponsoredwalk

I think it is important to define some terms at this point so that a more rational dialog between us can begin to emerge here. I think things are degenerating quickly and I don't want that to happen.

First lets define the term differential in the context that I meant it in the following quote.

I realized that in fact there should be no ΔE in the equation after all.

My reasoning is simple. Deltas (Δ) are used in differential equations not simple identities. If you recall Mathis goes into this quite extensively when he talks about his correction to the calculus.

I want to clarify what I was talking about using a quote from the paper I linked directly after.

http://milesmathis.com/calcsimp.html

Mathis

A differential is one number subtracted from another number: (2-1) is a differential. So is (x-y). A “differential” is just a fancier term for a “difference”. A differential is written as two terms and a minus sign, but as a whole, a differential stands for one number. The differential (2-1) is obviously just 1, for example. So you can see that a differential is a useful expansion. It is one number written in a longer form. You can write any number as a differential. The number five can be written as (8-3), or in a multitude of other ways. We may want to write a single number as a differential because it allows us to define that differential as some useful physical parameter.

I then talked about the form the KE equation would take if one were looking for a change in the kinetic energy. (Or in other words ΔE)
You have refrenced this equation many times in the posts above so I must assume you agree with me on its structure.

ΔE = ½mvf2 - ½mvi2

In this form of the equation all we have done is subtract the initial KE from the final KE and in doing so have a result for the change in kinetic energy.

However, there is another form of this equation which is called the Total Mechanical Energy equation.


E = ½mv2

In this equation E represents the total mechanical energy of a body or system of bodies. the E also represents both the kinetic and potential energy of the body.

E = KE+PE = ½mv2

Kinetic and potential energy may fall and increase in inverse proportions depending on whatever physical thing is happening to the body. i.e. acceleration due to forces.

Please note that by definition the Total Mechanical Energy never changes!

Mathis is using the second form of the equation in his paper. He is not confused or mixing up these equations. I genuinely believe that you are.

Here are some independent sources for you to review.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/U5L1d.cfm
http://www.physchem.co.za/OB12-mec/ener ... mechanical

Here is a link to a simiple power point presentation about this subject from a third party.

http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/markworth/ ... energy.ppt

I encourage everyone to check out the links and chime in on this issue

I have studied Mathis' website in the last year reading every paper on the site at least three times. I assure you he is very familiar with mathematical manipulation of these equations.

sponsoredwalk, I hope if you can get past this issue which you said at one time was haunting you about the paper perhaps we can begin to talk about some of Mathis' conclusions.

I have to add how much I appreciate you being engaged in our discussion. I believe you are pursuit of truth as much as I am. That's why thunderbolts.info is one of my favorite sites because I believe it is their goal as well.

[sponsoredwalk]

So judging by your response I've gotten nothing wrong, Mathis is still wrong, you're choosing to incorrectly claim
Mathis is using the total mechanical energy (vf2 - vi2, when Mathis uses this form of the equation, as he does in the sole equation on which he bases his conclusions, this is by definition a change in mechanical energy, the only way you could have been right was if Mathis had written vf2 = vi2, along with ½m, but he didn't because he was
describing a change in energy via the equations but he was speaking and concluding as if he was dealing with energy), you're still claiming I'm confused even though youve given no evidence which leads me to conclude you're fighting against all the evidence to satiate your undying allegiance to Mathis as opposed to caring about truth.
By the way you must also reread what was haunting me, it was nothing about Mathis paper, seriously are you even reading what I write? I explicitly said I was haunted in school by being given equations such as the kinetic energy equation and being given no notion of where it came from or even that it was something that could be derived. Obviously you're half-heartedly reading my posts and looking for weaknesses without acknowledging my points. I've made my case, your response does nothing to justify Mathis at all, all you've done is clarify that you're aware of basic physics but this is not a justification of Mathis or any of the explicit errors I pointed out.
Finally, I have said in every post that I have no interest in acknowledging his conclusions, I've already given
reasons why this is the case as well. I'm not qualified to even understand them, I will not be for about
2 or 3 years as I study a lot more physics & mathematics. With his conclusions completely out of my mind I
want to repeat that his conclusions, whatever they may be, are founded on a completely waifer thin basis
& I'm sure that if they are as strong as you all think he can go & find some other way to rederive these
conslusions. Just because the foundations of analysis were not completely correct it didn't mean calculus
was giving the wrong answers, maybe Mathis has something. As far as I'm concerned if someone is going to
blatantly get wrong trivial matters like these his entire work is suspect as falling privy to the same flaws.
Also, reading the many critical sites of Mathis he is extremely privy to ridiculous errors and going off on a
tangent with them. If errors are so common, I've only got to quote Mathis himself:
Is it likely they are getting the right answer for that, when they have the wrong answer for this?
http://milesmathis.com/voat.html
I think it's too late to defend Mathis tbh as you've been given more than enough chances to focus on the
substance of my posts & show that I'm wrong but you didn't because you can't because these errors are so
obvious & explicit. Just as the proof that 2 = 1 gives the wrong answer because you divide by zero, so Mathis
tells us our book is lying to us because an equation that was zero to begin with allows Mathis to also incorrectly
justify his claim that the textbook equations imply we need an acceleration in order to have a force or kinetic
energy - which they don't imply. Also, all of the reasons he uses, in words - not equations, have explanations
that do not accord with his conclusions from these situations. A prime example is even mentioning a photon
when discussing an equation that does not have anything to do with it. Also, his description of a car hitting
you, how is that supposed to justify him? It does only if you don't think about the explanation for that
car, it does nothing to justify him.
There's no point in me responding as I've made my case unless you can actually justify the things I've been asking
you to do since our first post, I'll let the objective reader decide.

[sponsoredwalk]

There are two new papers posted on a website analyzing Mathis work.

http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/201 ... %E2%80%9D/

http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/201 ... -possible/

The authors obviously invite you to point out any flaws in their assessment & I'd be really interested to see how
you guys who champion Mathis work would defend the errors these authors point out on their site.
I totally agree with the paper on pi, I'd never read it before but the error Mathis makes is unbelievable,
I mean it's shocking to see someone write this. The special relativity paper is out of my depth but once I
read the Wodehouse book, which I had already planned to in the future, I'll be in a better position to judge.
I'm not going to defend anything though, there is a box at the bottom of both pages to respond to the authors
and defend Mathis, I hope to read your thoughts.

[seasmith]

Sponsored walk wrote:

A prime example is even mentioning a photon
when discussing an equation that does not have anything to do with it.

Mathis' entire body of work is based on his concept of photon.

This is still just a basic misunderstanding of the whole concept though. Just so we're clear, Δ represents
change...

Understanding concepts begins with understanding ideas.
Without a proper comprehension of the ideas, debating any applied language or math is futile.
Or worse, a diversion. May i respectfully suggest read, read, read ?

btw, who Is your sponsor

[DDD]

Quite honestly anyone who believes Mathis does so only because they simply are unable or unwilling to understand mathematcis and physics. If his exposition is "clear and elegant" to you, that is because you have never been exposed to the real thing. What makes you guys think that simple algebra is enough to answer any question? Does a single Mathis theory make a single prediction? No, he just rambles on dismissing everyone who had a mathematical though before him. The guy is a crank, cut and dry.

I challenge anyone here to find a flaw in the Pi arguement at

http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/201 ... %E2%80%9D/.

Just one flaw in that or any other article on that blog. You can't because the guys who wrote it are actually studying physics and mathematics.

[seasmith]

MAXWELL'S DEMON
Brought to Life

~ Indication of an inherent (photonic ?) emission field ?

For the first time, scientists have converted information into pure energy, experimentally verifying a thought experiment first proposed 150 years ago.
The idea was originally formulated by physicist James Clerk Maxwell,...

When Maxwell introduced the concept, in his letters to colleagues, and in his book, Theory of Heat, he described it as a "finite being."
The thought experiment first appeared in a letter Maxwell wrote to Peter Guthrie Tait on 11 December 1867. It appeared again in a letter to John William Strutt in 1870, before it was presented to the public in Maxwell's 1871 book on thermodynamics titled Theory of Heat.[1]
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) was the first to use the word "demon" for Maxwell's concept, in the journal Nature in 1874, and implied that he intended the mediating, rather than malevolent, context of the word.[2][3]

In the setup, the staircase was actually made of potential energy and created using electric fields. The molecule had some thermal energy – heat – so it would fluctuate, moving in random directions.
The scientists used a high-speed camera to photograph the molecule. When it happened to be moving up the staircase, they let it move freely, but when it happened to be moving down the staircase, the researchers blocked its motion by inserting a virtual wall using an electric field.
"It's like the particle is making random steps up or down, but only when the particle goes up the stairs, we put some wall on the stairs to avoid the particle falling down," Sano told LiveScience. "This is kind of a Maxwell's demon."
As the particle moved up the staircase, it gained energy because it moved to a location of higher potential – akin to climbing a mountain. Yet the researchers never had to push the particle up the mountain (i.e. do work or input energy) – they simply used the information about which direction it happened to be moving in at any given time to guide the climb.
]Energy boost
Not only were the researchers able to move the particle up the stairs, but they were able to precisely measure how much energy was converted from information.
The researchers describe their results in the Nov. 14 online edition of the journal Nature Physics.
In an accompanying essay in the same issue of the journal, physicist Christian Van den Broeck of the University of Hasselt in Belgium, who was not involved in the new study, called it "a direct verification of information-to-energy conversion."

http://www.rdmag.com/Community/Blogs/RD ... t-to-life/
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vao ... s1821.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/ ... z15qeipi66
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

[Jarvamundo]

hmm interesting indeed...i'm detecting parametric excitation and 'synthesis' of energy here. The process can also be reversed, that is to destroy energy, equally invalidating thermo#2. Does anyone have this paper?

[webolife]

No, but it takes work for them to affect the energy transformation through the implementation of the electric field by interupting the flow in which entropy would be decreased, thus neither therm#1 nor therm#2 are violated.

[DDD]

This isn't targeted at everyone here, just Mathis supporters. If you are really interested in math and physics why not try to really learn from some from credible sources? What do you think is more likely, that almost everyone before Mathis was wrong and he is the first man capable of understanding the true nature of mathematics and physics, or perhaps he is just incapable of or unwilling to understand the material and thus spouts this crap?

Come on guys, I appreciate being interested in this stuff and that a degree in math or physics isn't for everyone, but there are much better sources than Miles "crank" Mathis. I understand that he writes in everyday language, but have you considered that perhaps the issues are just too technical to be properly examined using everyday language and highschool algebra? Do you really think it possible that every undergrad in the past 300 years was completely fooled, that no ambitious student noticed the "smoke and mirrors" and said something? Mathematics is a very competetive field, they look for flaws in each others proofs all the time. Do you think none of them would ring the proverbial bell if it were all a giant sham? Why should every problem be solvable with "simple math"? Have you considered the possibility that all this "smoke and mirrors higher math" was created out of necessity? Have you never noticed that not a single Mathis "theory" is able to make any concrete testable predictions?

Just look at his pi=4 crap. Forget a physical interpretation, consider a purely mathmatical line of reasoning. When describing a circle there is absolutely no reason to consider accelerations, velocities, photons, quanta, or anything like that. It is defined as a set of points (x,y) satisfying x^2 + y^2 = r^2. There is no rational reason to appeal to any physical interpretation, so why confuse the idea by doing so? There is a reason pure mathematics is called pure mathematics, because it needs no physical interpretation, physcial foundation, or physical reason to exist, it is math for the sake of math. Further what about all the real world applications that use pi = 3.1415... all the time? Cell phones, gps, computers, the list goes on. Anything that involves signal processing undoubtedly uses pi = 3.1415..., just think about fourier transformes. If pi were actually 4 then all these wonders would fail to work.

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?

Scientists are sometimes a very egotistical bunch and are always trying to pop holes in each others work. Do you really think it is possible to get every physicicst, every mathmatician, ever electrical engineer, every aeronautical engineer, etc, to join in a giant conspiracy about the value of pi? Or has every person who had any math/physics training before Mathis been so stupid that they could be so easily fooled? WHy not just do an experiment and measure the circumference of a pop can and compare it to the radius. The measurement won't be perfect, but I promise you the implied result for pi will be a whole lot closer to 3.1415... than it is to 4. I just tried to measure a pepsi can, for circumference I got approximately 21 cm and for diameter approximately 6.5 cm, which gives an approximate value of 3.23 for pi. That is an approximate 2.83% error from the accepted value of pi. However if I accepted pi=4, then my error would be approximately 19.23%, almost 7 times greater! Which seems more plausible to you?

I'm no physicist, I study pure math and statistics theory. Thus I cannot judge his papers on relativity and such, although I have it on good authority from people studying physics that his arguements are all bunk. I can tell you that what little mathematics is contained in them is all wrong though. My point is, forget his physics papers for the moment, how can you possibly accept this result when it is so obviously wrong?

Come on guys, have some independent thought. How can it possibly be rational to support Mathis and assume every other person out there is wrong, but put Mathis crap beyond question? I used to think that the requirement of a degree for employment may unfairly exclude self taught individuals, but since I have seen so many untrained people willing to swallow mathis bullshit my mind is changing. Help me restore some of my faith in the ability of the average man to think rationally for himself, see this guy for the fool fraud that he is.

There is room in the scientific community for anyone who wishes to make a serious contribution, amateur and professional alike. There are lots of disagreements among scientists, but never over something this trivial. I can only assume anyone who accepts pi=4 has no formal training in mathematics, but don't worry. You can still ask meaningful questions and even question current theories, but accepting nonsense like pi=4 makes you look foolish and nobody else will ever take you seriously.

No matter what anyone here believes about pi, I will go on to complete my studies, finish graduate school and hopefully be able to contribute something to the field I love. I gain nothing by writing this. I respect anyones curiosity in these matters, but I urge you to abandon this crap. Think for yourself, ask questions, but don't be led down the path to crankdom by anyone, especially the likes of Miles "crank" Mathis.

One final thought, suppose you needed a heart transplant. Would you let some self proclaimed genius with no training who calls all doctors quacks and calls all current medical knowlegde a sham operate on you, or would you want someone trained by the medical establishment who currently practices in his field?

[Siggy_G]

I know quite a few people here are fond of Miles Mathis, and I haven't read all his papers/sections on math and physics. But I'm going to agree with DDD here. Even if Miles have some interesting statements among his writings, the interpretation about pi is especially wrong, and puts the rest of his work in question. Simple measurement and comparison show that the area of a circle isn't the same as a quad... Same goes for volume of a cube vs a sphere. The same goes for centripetal acceleration - the values are testable in favour of pi = 3,1415...

When Miles or anyone else points to math being inaccurate or conceptual only because there are inaccuracies at microscopic level in nature, then that doesn't refute the entire formula or the main value one is working with.

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.

[seasmith]

Some flaming generalizations have been made in the posts above concerning MM’s elementary precepts.

Here is one made by MM himself:

“This means that π is now a relic (except perhaps in scalar equations, like area and so on).”

Here are some specifics, for calm consideration:

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

The number π only exists when we are given absolute pre-existing values, when the circumference is treated as a simple length, and when we ignore time. But since with any real circle both these assumptions are necessarily false, π does not exist in any real circle. In any real circle, the relationship between the diameter and the circumference is not π , since the circumference may not be thought of as a straight-line distance.
Because the circumference cannot be created with a single velocity vector (and the diameter can), the two numbers cannot be compared directly.”

“…tangential velocity and orbital velocity are equal only when the length of the tangent is equal to the radius, or when the time is equal to 1/8th of the orbital period.
Or, at 1/8 of the circle, the tangent simply IS the arc.”

“If we bring time back into the problem of the circle, we find that every line or distance becomes a velocity and every curve becomes an acceleration.”

“I say that in order for the compound or “orbital” velocity to be less than the original or tangential velocity, the centripetal force must be working against it, in a vector sense.
…as every engineer knows, the orbital velocity is less than the tangential velocity.”


http://milesmathis.com/pi4.html