Miles Mathis Interview

[Lloyd]

* Hey Hertz, you beat me to the punch. I just read that paper too and was ready to share some info from that and another paper. Oh well, I'll share it anyway, since there's not much overlap, I think.

Charge and Galactic Electric Current
http://milesmathis.com/mond.html

t is thought that mass and charge are static when they are not. They may be STABLE, but they are not static. Mass and charge are both motion, and all motion includes time, by definition.
- "That implies that the mass of the proton is not really measured in kilograms, it is measured in kilograms per second. You can't mean that." Yes, I do mean that. The current notation is fine in most circumstances, since we drop the time in almost all equations. It only comes up in problems like this, when we see clearly that charge is an emission, and an emission happens over time.

* Actually, my understanding of Miles' idea on charge is that it's a flow of mass and a lot of mass flows through each proton per second. But the proton has its own mass as well. So I gather that it's like a faucet. The faucet has a mass and the water that flows through it has mass. The amount that flows through in a minute is usually more than the mass of the faucet itself.

- [T]his new paper [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1397v3.pdf] [is] by researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, who have obtained “for the first time, a direct determination of a galactic-scale electric current (~ 3 × 10^18 A) , and its direction ... positive away from the AGN. Our analysis strongly supports a model where the jet energy flow is mainly electromagnetic.”

Megalightning from the Heliospheric Current Sheet
* What the following says to me is that all it takes to get megalightning strikes between planets or cosmic bodies is dust from comets etc. The dust gives the existing charge the means to make a huge current, or electric discharge.
http://milesmathis.com/helio.pdf

[Wikipedia says:] The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (Solar Wind). A small electrical current flows within the sheet, about 10^−10 A/m². The thickness of the current sheet is about 10,000km.
... When I present my unified field equations, I am always told by the mainstream that there isn't enough E/M in the universe to make a difference. They point to the small electrical current, and say that is negligible.
... Current doesn't run through charge, it runs through ions. In other words, I have defined charge as being mediated by real photons, and E/M is mediated by ions. You have two levels of energy transport here, and they ignore that. They treat charge just like E/M, but charge underlies E/M, it isn't equivalent to it. If you have photons but no ions, you will have charge but no current.
... The low number 10^−10 A/m² isn't an indication of low charge, it is only an indication of the low density of ions present. The number is low because they are measuring the current in the space between planets, which is of very low ionic density. The fact is, given the density of ions in Solar System space, that current is extremely high. To have that much current with that density of ions indicates a very high charge. It indicates a very dense and powerful photonic field in space.
... [T]he density of space in the Solar System is around 1fg/m^3. That's 10^-18kg/m^3. To achieve or measure a current of 10^−10A/m² across that is extraordinary, to say the least....
... It is extraordinary because a matter density that low shouldn't create or carry any current, and the mainstream never explains how current can travel through empty space. To show you how high it is, let us scale that current up. What if space had the density of water? The current would be 10^11A/m²! That's the power of over 3 million lightning bolts. That is the true measure of how powerful the underlying charge field is. In other words, the charge field that exists in the Solar System has that potential (and more), and it is just waiting for ions to express that potential as current or magnetism.
... That number 10^−10A/m² is an indirect measurement of my charge field....
... The charge field energizes the ions, and the ions tell us the current. The current with the density of ions tells us the strength of the underlying charge field.

[Lloyd]

Universal Spin Question
LK: Hi Miles.
* After our last discussion about photon spin, the idea of the universe having stacked spins began to seem awfully complicated to me, and might violate one or more basic principles. Like, if space doesn't have any properties, how could matter in the universe be affected by the universe's spin? And how could it spin without being a rigid container? So I'm wondering how necessary it would be for gravity to be an outward force, like centrifugal force, in order to satisfy your basic principles. I was thinking earlier that, if photons are concentrated at galactic centers and in other large masses, and if bodies of matter spray out photons in all directions, apparently mainly from their surfaces (since those photons inside would mostly tend to get recycled, I think) the outward spray should make lower density near each body of matter, so outside pressure should force the charge field or "aether" (I guess that would be the slower photons?) back toward the body; and I was wondering if that could be gravity. It seems like it may be possible to calculate how much force the outside pressure might involve. Have you already ruled out such possibilities? I get some of my ideas from Steven Rado's Aethrokinematics.

MM: I haven't ruled anything out, but I don't think your mechanics will work. It is my opinion that we need two separate forces in the unified field, to explain all the data. Therefore we can't explain gravity with charge. The evidence I have for that is all the problems I have been able to solve with the unified field. If I were completely wrong, I shouldn't have been able to solve all these problems so quickly and simply.
As for universal spin, again, you may be right. It is just a theory. I am convinced we need the vector out, but it may be created in a way none of us have seen yet.
[See his papers: http://milesmathis.com/uft.html and http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html and others at http://milesmathis.com.]

Using Light for Electric Circuits
LK: * I just heard about the idea of using light for electric circuits. Maybe a conventional circuit wouldn't be needed, if it's similar to Tesla's idea. But this one tries to mimic conventional circuits. What do you think about this? I'm quoting part of this article.
Replacing Electricity With Light: First Physical 'Metatronic' Circuit Created - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 183809.htm

- "Looking at the success of electronics over the last century, I have always wondered why we should be limited to electric current in making circuits," said Nader Engheta ... of Penn's School of Engineering and Applied Science. "If we moved to shorter wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum -- like light -- we could make things smaller, faster and more efficient."
- Different arrangements and combinations of electronic circuits have different functions, ranging from simple light switches to complex supercomputers. These circuits are in turn built of different arrangements of circuit elements, like resistors, inductors and capacitors, which manipulate the flow of electrons in a circuit in mathematically precise ways. And because both electric circuits and optics follow Maxwell's equations -- the fundamental formulas that describe the behavior of electromagnetic fields -- Engheta's dream of building circuits with light wasn't just the stuff of imagination. In 2005, he and his students published a theoretical paper outlining how optical circuit elements could work.
- Now, he and his group at Penn have made this dream a reality, creating the first physical demonstration of "lumped" optical circuit elements. This represents a milestone in a nascent field of science and engineering Engheta has dubbed "metatronics."

MM: As for light in circuits, I have shown we already have that. The charge field is what causes the current now. So the question reverts to, can we have circuits without ions. Maybe. It isn't my specialty, so I don't know. I don't know how completely we can separate charge and E/M.
[See his papers: http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf and http://milesmathis.com/xylem.pdf.]

[Lloyd]

* Miles ended the interview, but here was my last reply.

You say: "It is my opinion that we need two separate forces in the unified field, to explain all the data. Therefore we can't explain gravity with charge. The evidence I have for that is all the problems I have been able to solve with the unified field. If I were completely wrong, I shouldn't have been able to solve all these problems so quickly and simply."

* I agree that your UFT seems to make eminent sense and solve many problems (though I'm not an expert). I see what you're saying about needing two separate forces to explain data. I remember some of what you said about planetary orbits needing more than one force too. [See http://milesmathis.com/mars.html.] Here's a thought. Maybe the charge field can produce two different forces, with one being inward, slow-moving, affecting volume or area, while the other is outward, near light speed, affecting only mass. Is that conceivable? I hope so, because it might make things easier for me to comprehend.
* If I find other interesting info from Miles' website, I'll try to post it here and I encourage anyone else to do likewise.

[Lloyd]

Life Requires Stability
* Mathis says that living things exist at our size level, because life requires stability and there is too little stability at the submicroscopic and at the cosmic scales. Charge dominates at the microcosmic scale and gravity dominates at the cosmic scale. At our scale they nearly balance each other.
HOW MAGNETISM WORKS MECHANICALLY
http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html

- If the E/M field is larger at small scales and solo-gravity is larger at large scales, then there must be some scale where they are equal. It turns out that this scale is the scale of earthly objects. It is the scale of humans and houses, roughly. It was in my paper on the Moon that I first recognized this. I showed that the Earth's charge field is .009545, compared to its gravity field of 9.81. The Earth's charge field is about .1% of its unified field. But with the Moon, we already see a big difference in that percentage. The Moon's charge field is 1 and its solo-gravity field is 2.67, so its charge field is 27% of its unified field. That's a big change. We moved from the size of the Earth to the size of the Moon, and found that much difference in the unified field. Then, in my Cavendish paper, I calculated the unified field for his experiment, finding that for his balls, the solo-gravity field had fallen below the E/M field, being only 35% of the unified field. The size of field equality is just above that, at the size of about 1 meter.
- This is one of the major reasons that we see such stability at our own size level. We assume that this sort of stability is normal in the universe, but it it isn't. At the size of planets and stars, we don't see this stability, which is why planets and stars are less stable. You don't see planets and stars sitting around next to one another, completely still. Large objects are always rushing around in orbits, trying to maintain stability that way. The same can be said for very small objects like quanta. We never see them sitting around next to eachother, like rocks or chairs. They are always rushing about, crashing into one another, or trying to maintain orbits. You may think that objects at our own size are stable due mainly to friction, or to the gravity field of the Earth, but that is only partially true. In most cases, neither gravity nor friction (nor air pressure) can explain the stability of earthly objects. What explains it is a balancing of gravity and E/M.
- It is not an accident that life happens to exist at this size level, either. Life requires this sort of stability, and so we would expect it to exist at the size level where gravity and E/M offset. Before now, it has never been explained why life forms should be expected to exist near 1 meter, instead of nearer the quantum level or the stellar level, but this is the reason. Yes, it would be difficult for life composed of molecules to exist below the molecular level, and it would be difficult for life that requires water or oxygen or any other molecules to exist as planets floating in space, but those commonsensical answers are not the whole story. Life also requires stability. It requires freedom from constant collision (on the small side), and freedom from the requirement of orbiting (on the large side). So even without these other considerations, we would expect to find life existing near the point of balance of gravity and E/M.

[Lloyd]

* The interview is still over, but now I'm sort of interviewing his papers.
Charge Feeds Plants
* I just read his paper, The PRESSURE-FLOW Hypothesis is FALSE, at http://milesmathis.com/xylem.pdf. He shows persuasively that the upward moving charge field (of photons) of the Earth is what moves nutrients in plants up to the leaves etc. I asked him if he's heard of biophotons, as explained at http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... art-2.aspx, and I imagine that they could be derived from the charge fields of animate bodies etc.
Mars' and Venus' Missing Magnetic Fields
* I also read WHERE is the MAGNETISM of MARS? at http://milesmathis.com/marsmag.pdf. He says Mars has a weak magnetic field because the charge field from the Sun and the gas giant planets are too far away from it. Venus lacks a magnetic field, because it's upside down, which cancels out the magnetism of the Sun's charge field, but it doesn't cancel out the heating effects, which is why it's hot. This means Venus may not have gotten its heat from recent ejection from a gas giant planet, or at least not all of it. However, Venus' thick cloud cover and its upside-down position still suggest a catastrophic past. The fact that Mars seems to have had a strong magnetic field in the past also suggests that there was a different planetary arrangement in the past.
* He says the Moon lacks a magnetic field because of influence from the Earth's and Sun's charge fields in opposing ways.
* Charles Chandler, on the other hand, has suggested that magnetic fields may be weak when positive and negative charge layers within bodies cancel each other's magnetic effects.
* If Mathis' idea is correct, it means we may be able to determine which planets and moons were in which positions in the past, such as within the proposed ancient Saturn System.

[Gottlieb680]

Like some people I came across Miles Mathis because he gave titles such as "The Calculus is Corrupt", the "Greatest Standing Errors" in physics and "The Extinction of Pi" to some things he wrote on his website and they appeared on a search I was making. I was not at all impressed by what I found when I read some of his things. The one about pi=4 is of course a bizarre concept, kinematic or not, and I have followed many discussions which convincingly place Mathis in the wrong. I began to detect a disappointing pattern in his writings on science, art, and other subjects. I must read through thousands of words of insults, vicious asides, accusations of incompetence and ridicule aimed by Mathis against NASA, textbooks, scientists, mathematicians, professors, artists, US Presidents, all political candidates except Ron Paul, democracy, and peer review just to get to the point of the thing he is proposing.

Then there is the science itself. His opinion on "Why do Stars Twinkle", that stars appear to twinkle because of huge gaps in the photons as they reach us. This he calls flicker and compares it to an old movie projector flickering because we see the gaps between the frames. He never explains exactly why, however, light from stars should be arriving on earth in "sheets" separated by gaps in which no light is seen. He makes no acknowledgement of color shifts observed when viewing stars through binoculars or telescope, which is what most scientists observe and account for in slightly varying ways relating to optical refraction through the atmosphere. He cites no peer reviewed papers on the matter and he presents no widely used standard model against which he could make his claims. Instead he pounces upon an obscure, conversational post by astronomer Dave Kornreich on the site "Ask an Astronomer". Kornreich wrote:
"Now a star in the sky is in a true sense a single point of light.All the light comes through the atmosphere in exactly the same direction, through exactly the same atmospheric turbulence, and thus is bent in exactly the same way. So when it gets to your eye, the amount of light you see coherently varies.On the other hand, light from a planet is different. Each of a few receptors in your eye sees a large number of light rays coming from the planet, each of which has been bent differently by the atmosphere(since the planet has size in the sky, they are arriving in slightly different directions). Some of these rays will become brighter, some dimmer. But because they all illuminate the same receptor in your eye, that receptor only sees the total amount of light hitting it. There will be about the same number of enhanced rays as dimmed rays, so you experience a steady light, not a twinkle."

About Kornreich, Mathis wrote: "He had to dig up the standard answer and no doubt force it down the poor child's throat. She, or someone else, demanded clarification on his 'averaging' assertion, an assertion he was foolish enough to have made up on his own. He should have stuck to copying straight from the text. But once he said averaging, he had to defend it, although he obviously had just pulled it from the air. That's when he made up the whole story about receptors. God knows where he got that from. But by then he had used the phrase "coherently varies" and the child nodded off and he was saved from further inglories. (How can something "coherently vary"? If light is coherent, it is coherent because it does not vary).

I have read a couple of explanations of star twinkle similar to Kornreich but I have not searched for them yet before posting this. Mathis is not justified in ridiculing this man. There is no evidence Kornreich forced anything down anyone's throat or that he made up any part of his explanation. And Mathis' last line, about the child falling asleep in the middle of Kornreich's explanation, is pure viciousness. And if Mathis were not so eager to attack this man he would have been able to discern that Kornreich meant "...the light you see coherently, varies." (comma is mine).

Most of what I've read from Mathis works out this way, insults interspersed with largely flawed or inadequately defined ideas and finished off with more insults and snide remarks. These insults and tirades against scientists should serve as a warning to anyone. The science Mathis criticizes, in the pi=4 write-up, for instance at least has the advantage of having worked in real life situations and experimentally. Real scientists, unlike Mathis, have done the work necessary to become accredited. They may make mistakes but at least their their errors are the result of honest miscalculations. And their successes are the result of hard work in concert with others and evaluated by peers. All Mathis does is snipe from the sidelines. I cannot credit people who work in isolation, who can't revise their work, who cannot accept criticism,who think they are never wrong and who ask for money at the bottom of everything they post.

Does any thing I've said resonate with anyone?

[Shrike]

No not really. not to me any way.

He cites no peer reviewed papers on the matter and he presents no widely used standard model against which he could make his claims.

Why should one as an independent thinker ?

I cannot credit people who work in isolation, who can't revise their work, who cannot accept criticism,who think they are never wrong and who ask for money at the bottom of everything they post.

That last line in your post is basically what it is about isn't it. ?

I don't see anything wrong with asking a donation.
The "so called real" scientist go straight to governments and ask for billions of tax money.
Via closed peer groups without the tax payers consent, everything behind closed doors.
Asking for a donation is a much more honest way.

As for working in isolation, history has know many of such isolated against the main stream scientist who later became credited for.

Miles has updated and revised and or clarified his papers many of times after being emailed by readers.

AS for ridiculing "real scientist" I don't think it's that bad and after all if one reads blogs of "real scientist" all they do is ridicule or call crack pot everyone who is not in their peer review group.!

Your post is nothing but "the pot calling the kettle black".

[Lloyd]

Conventional versus Alternative
* Gottlieb, I see you just joined this forum yesterday. You seem to favor conventional science over alternative science, but most people here are very dissatisfied with conventional science and would probably agree with many of Mathis' criticisms of it. I think it's quite an exaggeration to call Mathis' criticisms vicious. In the example you gave above, it sounds like you may be right that Mathis misunderstood a scientist's explanation. But I don't know, because I either haven't read the paper, or I don't remember much about it. Also, it's hard to understand your criticism, because I couldn't tell whether you were saying that Mathis said certain things, or the scientists he quoted said them, or you yourself said them.
Criticism of Criticism
* Your criticism of Mathis for asking for donations is naive and unreasonable. He would like to have support for his work, so he can afford to do more of it. He doesn't force anyone to pay him. He's generous to make all of his material available to the public for free. The criticisms he makes in his papers are both enlightening and entertaining. Many readers are initially little aware of just how incompetent modern science has become and he helps enlighten them to that fact. He's also entertaining and more interesting to read, than dry, robotic scientese. See how entertaining you were by criticizing him? That's what he is too.
* In order to persuade anyone here that Mathis is wrong on any particular subject, you would need to clarify what he said and explain why it's wrong. You tried to do that with regard to his paper on Why Stars Twinkle, but, as I said, it was hard to follow what statements you were attributing to whom. So, you're welcome to point out here any of Mathis' errors that you like, but it would help if you can explain more clearly. And stop complaining about his complaining, unless you want to keep entertaining us that way.

[Gottlieb680]

I favor science. Whether or not it is provable by experiment goes a long way toward my believing it. The labels of conventional and alternative science I can profitably ignore.
As a consumer of information I am free to evaluate theories and when I run into something challenging I ask friends who are scientists for clarification. Yet I still evaluate their clarifications. That is all part of being an independent thinker. I just think that there are such things as correct solutions, incorrect solutions, non solutions, plausible solutions, implausible solutions, etc. I have not noticed any corrections of Mathis' p=4 entry, long or short versions. The papers I've read which disprove Mathis' p=4 have convinced me he's wrong. He says he's referring to kinematic situations when he says pi=4 but he never gives any reason why anyone should believe this. We know very well this would be one of the easier experiments to set up and Mathis never goes there. He merely belabors his math and geometry. Strange, this, because he avoids math in most of the other writings and sticks to philosophical explanations. Yet he doggedly clings to the nuts and bolts of the pi=4 argument. He must feel very strongly about it. Maybe this is why he does not want to encourage an experiment or make a prediction. He knows he's wrong. He can hide and evade written disproofs of his opinions, but an experiment with a busted prediction would sink him.

Mathis wants to preach to those who know little about science. His writings are rich in natural language and insults but are skimpy in definitions, explanations and math. Therefore we get a 4000 word "Why do Stars Twinkle?" which devotes some 1950 words to ranting against NASA, astronomers and others, some 1000 words against the one astronomer, and only about 1100 words covering the actual topic. I don't anymore think Mathis is selling science opinions so much as selling his fights and his rage. The internet is full of this sort of thing and there is an interest in reading it. Maybe the internet is a good fit for someone like him. His two vanity published books are probably going to turn out to be bad ideas. The permanence of printed material and the cost of it is going to cause resentment among those who paid and later come to realize Mathis is wrong.

And concerning the book "The Un-Unified Field" by Mathis. Much attention has been given to the mistaken notion that a NASA astrophysicist endorsed the book. Dr. T. Yaqoob writes the introduction and clearly states he has not verified any of the results. Yaqoob has had over 200 papers published in peer reviewed journals, according to Mathis, and yet he can't review the book onto which he is putting his name. He said he has not verified Mathis' results. Not even a couple? Seriously? I cannot credit such a non-endorsement. And yet it is talked about as an endorsement by those who have not read this introduction with any understanding. So Mathis' first stab at vanity publishing opens with a not-so-subtle warning of illegitimacy from an accredited physicist Dr. T. Yaqoob.

There has always been a wordy, half-baked, non-genuine quality about Mathis' writings and I fear the future will not be good for him. The p=4 business will be experimented one day and Mathis will be figuratively hanged for it. After that all he'll be able to do is accuse the experimenters of being wrong and when most people see they are right and that Mathis, the attacker of scientists, is wrong his little band of sycophants may start to shrink.

[Julian Braggins]

gotlieb680,
perhaps MM has been exposed to criticisms such as yours so much that he is responding as best he knows, which is pretty well in my book.

Edison was reputed to have had 10,000 failures before he came up with cardboard as a viable filament for a light globe, those failures were forgotten and improvements made.

Perhaps MM is wrong on the P/4 explanation for NASA's early failure of rocket trajectories, (did you read the paper?) but if he is right on a fraction of his 'corrections' of science then I would hope he deserves recognition for those, timidity for fear of making a mistake is the bugbear of modern scholarship, heard mentality prevails.

If one mistake is all that is necessary to ruin a reputation in your eyes I think that shows more about you than him.

[phyllotaxis]

I humbly submit that I agree with gotlieb680 insofar as there being very little physical experimentation present to go along with MM's writings.

I find this conspicuous- though I do enjoy reading his papers, I mentally qualify them all as musings, not proven science. Until he can show testable results and confirmations of his thoughts, he remains only a thinker- just as mortal and fallible as the rest. Worthy reading for fellow thinkers, indeed- but I understand why so many are so dismissing of him, as he appears to have so little interest in backing up any of his work in the physical realm. Maybe some practical scientists will take up the challenge of addressing the lack of work in these areas and put the questions to rest...

Kindest Regards-

[Gottlieb680]

Thanks, phyllotaxis, for your comment and for reminding me of the important word "musings" to describe Mathis' writings. You are correct in that it will take practical science to settle the questions though most of the questions Mathis raises that I've researched really have been settled.

Julian, my criticisms of Mathis mostly have to do with his lack of true critical thinking, his inability to be specific and his predisposition to attack almost everything. Mathis, if he is ruined, will be ruined by his own work being proved wrong. If much of his work is proved wrong, so be it. And if that happens it will not be because of anything anyone thinks about me.

And, Julian, here's an example of uncritical thinking in the anecdote you give about the 10000 failures of Edison before the successful filament was found. The 10000 figure is the problem. Given a week for each unsuitable filament to be thoroughly tested and retested before being rejected that's 191 years. If given only three days per filament, that's 82 years. If every other day, that would be 54 years. This, of course, is impossible to credit so the 10000 figure for the failures must be wrong. All I am saying is test everyone and everything in science.

[ifrean]

Hi gotlieb680, I would be with phyllo on this although I have to point out that most of Tesla's musings have been proved right under experiment yet his free energy musings faded into the ether. Also would Einstein's musings be right or wrong, I have read here that the theory of relativity is bunk yet we still use in academic and cosmological circles......can you square that for me?

[Gottlieb680]

Hello, ifrean. I think it would be a mistake to consider Einstein's Relativity Theory as anything but a successful set of predictions mostly verified repeatedly by experiments. For instance, Einstein predicted that observations and actual data will all be apparently accurate from different positions of reference, but in relation (relativity) to one another the data sets will differ. This and various other parts of Einstein's theory have been tested and the results have been greatly in his favor. When the first GPS satellite was launched it was famously proposed by the satellite team that no special allowance needed to be made for the onboard clock and other devices which according to Einstein's theory would record different time from that on earth. 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.

There was much talk about faster than light particles at the CERN unit last year but I immediately suspected that there could have been errors in measurement. Sure enough the latest I've read is that CERN scientists have admitted to faulty wiring being the cause of bad measurements and that no particles exceeded the speed of light. But they should keep trying and the other unit that also claimed faster than light speeds is now rechecking its systems. So Einstein's prediction that nothing can exceed the speed of light still seems to hold. But even if a particle exceeds the speed of light Einstein's theory would still hold if the mass of the particle increases. He predicted that, too. There would have to be an adjustment to the figure for the speed of light under those lab conditions, whatever they are, and an upper limit found. Our present understanding of light's speed is in a vacuum.

Tesla was an inventor and an engineer and tended to put most of his energy into building his ideas into physical form. Like Einstein he also submitted papers to peer review which were well-received. He continually worked with others, collaborating on many projects. He worked for Edison in his younger days. Therefore he should not be considered an anti-establishment, lone wolf figure at odds with the rest of the scientific community of his day. If anything set him apart it would be the seamlessness of theory-experiment-product being found in the work of one person.

I am committed to learning and I oppose the shoddy writing, disorganized thinking, and flabby reasoning of someone like Miles Mathis. His laziness in not checking his own work or having it critically reviewed by competent people before posting it or committing it to books is as clear a warning as can be devised. That many people have become Mathis groupies is unfortunate as I think such devotion gets in the way of healthy critical thinking and research. We should not swallow whole anything that such people say but should subject their material to comparative criticism alongside the standard model as well as comparison to the next best alternative. Be skeptical in a healthy way, but also be skeptical of the skeptics.

[ifrean]

Gottlieb680, nice evasion but you cannot square a circle by continually beating it with belief.

Can you name one prediction that relativity has been correct on and please reference the paper.......thanks

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... &start=195

I defer to Goldminer on your GPS claims and as for the speed of light.......

I have never considered Tesla as a lone wolf, I was asking why his inventions and musings are not in the public domain whilst SR and GR are rammed down throats. simple question really