Here are the biggest discrepancies I have found between Miles Mathis’s theory of physics vs. the mainstream theory I learned growing up.
1. The Dark Matter theory. Mathis sees Dark Matter as a desperate attempt to make the numbers work for the mainstream model.
2. The shape of space. Mathis agrees with Tesla's position, "space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can
have no properties." Mathis's opinion is that Einstein made many important contributions, e=mc^2, relativity, but was mistaken about a couple of things, including the curvature of space. (See my previous post for more on Mathis's understanding of light and relativity.)
3. In Mathis’s system, curved motion, such as the path a planet moves through, does not have the same units as straight line motion. (!!!) While this may sound far-fetched just from being so different from the historical mainstream, there is no reason that it could not be correct. For example, historically, we have defined the length of a curve to be the straight-line length of a thread that fits along that curve. Mathis claims that curved motion is fundamentally different than straight-line motion, and so curves must be treated different than lines
This is the most difficult assumption in Mathis's theory, as it forces the redefinition of many basic assumptions of the mainstream math and physics we have grown up with. But Miles Mathis’s system is consistent! Many of his papers seem to contain errors and contradictions to someone used to the mainstream model. There are multiple times in Mathis’s papers where I have come to what I thought was an obviously incorrect statement. Each time, I’ve found Mathis directly addresses my issue, either within the same essay or often another one. Neither Mathis's system nor the mainstream's have identifiable inconsistencies. It’s just a question of which system best fits the data.
The easiest target for critics of mainstream physics like is Dark Matter. There is no empirical evidence for Dark Matter whatsoever--the whole theory is an attempt to make the numbers work for the mainstream’s theory of celestial motion. Another time I was reading Mathis’s essay on relativity. I thought that his transformations could not preserve the speed of light for different observers. I didn’t realize that Mathis had already written an entire essay addressing the exact question I had! Finally, this week (late July, 2013) I had a question about his analysis of circular motion. Again, a paper on the issue I had!
The easiest target for critics of mainstream physics like is Dark Matter. There is no empirical evidence for Dark Matter whatsoever--the whole theory is an attempt to make the numbers work for the mainstream’s theory of celestial motion. Another time I was reading Mathis’s essay on relativity. I thought that his transformations could not preserve the speed of light for different observers. I didn’t realize that Mathis had already written an entire essay addressing the exact question I had! Finally, this week (late July, 2013) I had a question about his analysis of circular motion. Again, a paper on the issue I had!
Mathis,
a figure artist originally, has been writing these papers for over 10
years and over that time has written papers addressing most every issue
that a reader will have. Keep this in mind whenever you think you’ve
found an inconsistency reading him.
4. Stacked spins
ReplyDelete5. Gravity is an expansion of matter
6. Pi is equal to 4
7. A mythical charge field
Has Miles Mathis proposed a single experiment that would verify any of the above assertions? No? Then why should we believe an artist who posts every idea that pops into his head from one day to next, and never proposes a single experiment to confirm any of it?
Without showing any eagerness to test his theories, Miles isn’t engaged in science, he’s merely daydreaming.
Look at mainstream, most of those theories are mainly untested...
DeleteIncorrect.
DeleteIt should be noted in #3 above, that the commenter writes "While this may sound far-fetched just from being so different from the historical mainstream, there is no reason that it could not be correct[a]. For example, historically, we have defined the length of a curve to be the straight-line length of a thread that fits along that curve[b]. Mathis claims[c] that curved motion is fundamentally different than straight-line motion, and so curves must be treated different than lines" So [a] wild assertion, followed by [b] what normal people do, then [c] "Mathis claims..." is somehow probative.
DeleteMiles is out of his mind. He might think that there is a god but he is just a child. If this artist ever sees a 25 feet tall man walking to his house he would think that this 25 feet tall man was a real thing. So do people who take L.S.D. think. So we now know that this Miles Mathis is just a drug taker. Hey Miles. You could just smoke some pot and get high and see what is not real.
DeleteAs the previous poster mentioned, 10 years and not one experiment. Miles will never be taken seriously if he neglects the most important aspect of science: testing the hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteMiles has pointed out countless sets of data in the mainstream that conflict current theory and support his theory. If you have read his papers, you would know he has indeed proposed experiments that would prove his own theories... But it is all the more damning that EXISTING experiments provide data that is already in conflict with current theory in so many ways, and yet seem to match the results predicted by his theories. Those of you who don't take him seriously (and I'm not saying he's right about everything) are going to A) kick yourselves later in life when, more and more, the mainstream theories fail while Mathis' provide an explanation or B) will die in ignorance of the fact that the mainstream has already utterly failed in so many ways. Any highschool student would be bothered by the 96% plus fudge that is Dark Matter. Something we cannot see, cannot measure, cannot detect, and yet it makes up 96% of all known matter? That's a back-calculated fudge because the forward calculation didn't work. Miles has a very simple, mechanical, and understandable explanation for dark matter - I suggest you read it and avoid jumping to conclusions about his theory because you refuse to consider something different than the bogus theory you've come to embrace.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of bogus theories, Mathis has recently discovered new evidence that proves that pi=4.
DeleteThe simplest explanation for dark matter, and currently the one that I'm sticking with, is that it does not exist.
Delete"Something we cannot see, cannot measure, cannot detect, ..."
DeleteExactly like Mathis' imaginary "charge field".
Name one experiment he has proposed. You can't.
Deletesee his double slit paper
Deletethus i can
The experiments you all expect Mathis to do are more or less the same ones we've been doing for centuries. Proposing a new theory does not necessarily discredit the properties of the physical world. I wonder why you guys keep asking for miracles and magic from this man just because he poses new theories.
ReplyDeleteNo one is asking for "miracles and magic". But in order to demonstrate that pi=4, it will require a very clever sleight-of-hand hat trick. Maybe Penn and Teller can help Mathis devise such an experiment.
Deletehey, "there's no such thing as bad publicity"
DeleteIts amazing how pi = 4 is the only thing that anyone ever comments on, and even then out of context! It is not that pi = 4, it is that pi is not the correct constant to use in certain kinematic calculations. The fact that none of you has ever been through the GR maths and found the obvious mathematical holes in Einsteins papers shows that you are not fit to comment. But even you must realise that curved space generating a force is conceptually ridiculous (just consider the energy....).
Delete"Not fit to comment"? That's almost as funny as Miles pi=4 theory.
DeleteIf you do not understand what the pi=4 reference is to, then perhaps you should just read the paper first. It's very trying and boring having a conversation with someone who wants to criticize something they haven't even read. Pi is derived from geometry where there is no time, nothing moves. When you are calculating an orbit, you most certainly do have movement and time. Look up the equation that describes a cycloid. In essence, it is demonstration that when you involve movement with a circular motion, yes the math does work out more like 8r. Hilbert also experimented with something called taxi cab logic which is employed successfully in many equations, which would seem to refute what you learned in high school geometry. Geometry is based on a timeless representation of the abstraction of shapes. It can contain no movement as it is formulated without time being present. When you crudely insert time into the equations problems arise, as a line is not the same as a curve mathematically or dimensionally. In reality, shapes are constructed with movement, they don't arise all at once or in a timeless instant.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has already read the Mathis pi=4 articles. The main article itself is only 15 pages long. So it is rather ridiculous to keep insisting that no one has read it. The average person could easily read it in under an hour.
DeleteAlso, the theory has nothing to do with time; although Mathis goes to great lengths to pretend that it does. The theory is really nothing more than drawing stair-steps around the perimeter of a circle, and then claiming that objects in motion will follow a stair-step path from one location to the next.
However, Mathis never gives any experimental evidence to support his stair-step theory. Nor does he offer any compelling reason why anyone should believe it. Consequently, the theory has been unanimously rejected and is regarded as mere pseudoscience.
Mathis offers no experimental evidence for his pi=4 idea. He attempts to use a flawed derivation as evidence and that is the sum total of his involvement in the matter. And he never offers any reason to believe that pi changes because an object is in motion.
DeleteMathis therefore consistently avoids any situation which will experimentally test his theory. He tries to use a derivation as proof and leaves it at that.
Big red flag.
This is why Mathis can never do science. He is too enamored of his own ideas to ever think they can be wrong. This is why he avoids testing his theories. He doesn't want to know they are wrong. And that is why he cannot do science.
What is proposed without evidence can be dismissed without argument.
Hello, Anonymus!
ReplyDeletePhysical chemistry, chronobiology and some other methods can feel things Mathis is writing about.
Try for example Simon Schnoll "Cosmophysical factors in stochastic processes".
You can look also to book "Moon rhythms in nature" or "Lunar influence to production of colloid silver". Mr.Vasiliev with his "New long range actions" or Vladimirsky with stormglass activity investigations also is interesting.
World is not so plain, as in textbooks.
Chears,
Edgars Alksnis
"World is not so plain, as in textbooks."
DeleteThe world is not so plain, as in the ravings of crackpots.
Just because many other kooks promote pseudoscience does not mean anything, except that there are many kooks in the world. Mathis is just a crackpot. That's all he'll ever be, no matter how much that hurts his few remaining groupies.
O! I look, You are going to explain us why hot Jupiters do not fall to their parent stars- or why Moon is not going to the Sun (via curved space).
DeleteI am impatient a bit.
Von Braun had a serious problem with his rockets, they went higher than expected! NASA found the same. So the engineers made their own equation and were happy, because it worked. Guess what, they used a new constant in place of pi and all came good. So who is proved right and who isn't? The standard model is certainly not right on this simple and fundamental point, and the kinematic constant above is around 4!
ReplyDeleteThe specious Von Braun story of which you have cited originally came from conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland:
Delete"Back in 2008, Richard Hoagland wrote a web page, which is still up, called Von Braun's Secret. He sought to show that the orbit of Explorer 1 was higher than expected by a margin that could not be explained by variability of the solid rocket fuel of the 1950s, or the fact that the Juno rocket had no guidance after first-stage burnout. According to Hoagland, "Von Braun's Secret" is knowledge of a secret anti-gravity effect. He attempted to use the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which enables accurate calculation of the velocity contribution of a rocket stage. In so doing he made mathematical errors that invalidated his entire argument..."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland#Mathematical_incompetence
Richard Hoagland is an even bigger con man than Mathis. You can't believe anything that comes from Hoagland or Mathis.
Open your mind. Light has less mass then matter, therefore the fine structure constant only applies to normal matter that is at zero or non-relativistic speeds, and a photon can travel at any wavelength including a line. People should use whichever system best fits the data.
ReplyDeleteWE'VE been around the world, lived around the world.
ReplyDeleteWE'VE lived among the wealthy and among the poor.
WE'VE lived around military and in muslim neighborhoods.
WE'VE been around network TV and Hollywood film set ups.
WE'VE been around the music industry.
WE KNOW blood shed and trauma first hand.
WE'VE studied history - - -and politics - - -and psy. - ---a LOT.
MATHIS CHECKS OUT.
I've done each of these.
DeleteAnd I've come to the conclusion Mathis is wrong.
Mathis has been extensively debunked. Check the reviews of his books on Amazon.com and you will see his science errors and bad math laid out in specific detail.
http://www.amazon.com/review/RZ7FPZVTOBHRL
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R256M7ZX1QPR8K
Likewise at Miles Pantload Mathis:
https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/
And Thunderbolts forum:
www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15094&sid=dc3be4555dd7c8b33429f2c0cf573030
These are far more convincing than lazy generalities about where you've been.
It's time to grow up.
Miles Pantload Mathis smells bad to me - it reeks of total Langley bull. Just a hunch I have. Trolls are all over the place as evidenced by the flat earth nonsense and hysteria. Who started that? some pantload at Langley, no doubt.
Delete'PSY--ants' is now even more corrupt than politics.
ReplyDeleteRemember, the fantasies of bought and paid actuarial PSYCHOPATHs
do --NOT-- make for TRUTH - - or even health.
TAKE HEED
The world is such a mess, we are full of half Truths and half Lies. MM makes full sense in some of his writtings in regards the Atomic Nucleus for instance but in some other of his writtings he seems not to be able to FLEX his own Brains. I know the FE could be a Psy-Op but I firmly believe it is not after conducting my own logical research, an in the case of MM it could make most of his theories and assumptions to collapse, to be invalidated like in the man-made Universe we have been indoctrinated to believe. That's why when someone is afraid of the truth, he knows something is wrong with his system of beliefs.
ReplyDelete