tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post4432702247421357911..comments2024-02-15T11:02:19.127-05:00Comments on On trying to see reality: Three Discrepancies Between Miles Mathis and Mainstream PhysicsTomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02725175206527681317noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-90984438854384674932018-05-03T09:57:08.796-05:002018-05-03T09:57:08.796-05:00see his double slit paper
thus i cansee his double slit paper<br /><br />thus i candukarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10922563948784303841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-49056235193320728262017-12-16T14:10:09.412-05:002017-12-16T14:10:09.412-05:00The world is such a mess, we are full of half Trut...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-90874087703068151962017-06-28T16:21:03.287-05:002017-06-28T16:21:03.287-05:00Miles Pantload Mathis smells bad to me - it reeks ...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-37904557118773842382016-12-29T01:30:09.633-05:002016-12-29T01:30:09.633-05:00Miles is out of his mind. He might think that ther...Miles 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. Ricardo Carbajal Mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01749396237602101576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-39030390147401733722016-11-18T00:15:44.084-05:002016-11-18T00:15:44.084-05:00'PSY--ants' is now even more corrupt than...'PSY--ants' is now even more corrupt than politics.<br /><br />Remember, the fantasies of bought and paid actuarial PSYCHOPATHs<br />do --NOT-- make for TRUTH - - or even health.<br /><br />TAKE HEEDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-44011925246693309372016-02-01T20:38:27.101-05:002016-02-01T20:38:27.101-05:00I've done each of these.
And I've come to...I've done each of these. <br />And I've come to the conclusion Mathis is wrong.<br /><br />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.<br />http://www.amazon.com/review/RZ7FPZVTOBHRL<br />http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R256M7ZX1QPR8K<br /><br />Likewise at Miles Pantload Mathis:<br />https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/<br /><br />And Thunderbolts forum:<br />www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15094&sid=dc3be4555dd7c8b33429f2c0cf573030<br /><br />These are far more convincing than lazy generalities about where you've been. <br />It's time to grow up.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-80552488264347323472016-01-24T06:12:11.192-05:002016-01-24T06:12:11.192-05:00WE'VE been around the world, lived around the ...WE'VE been around the world, lived around the world.<br /><br />WE'VE lived among the wealthy and among the poor.<br /><br />WE'VE lived around military and in muslim neighborhoods.<br /><br />WE'VE been around network TV and Hollywood film set ups.<br /><br />WE'VE been around the music industry.<br /><br />WE KNOW blood shed and trauma first hand.<br /><br />WE'VE studied history - - -and politics - - -and psy. - ---a LOT.<br /><br />MATHIS CHECKS OUT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-36484508652200530282015-11-30T06:24:10.805-05:002015-11-30T06:24:10.805-05:00O! I look, You are going to explain us why hot Jup...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). <br />I am impatient a bit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-53490711904677295242015-11-09T15:48:05.418-05:002015-11-09T15:48:05.418-05:00Name one experiment he has proposed. You can'...Name one experiment he has proposed. You can't.Americanegrohttp://gus.gus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-59769727844406025222015-11-09T15:46:25.773-05:002015-11-09T15:46:25.773-05:00It should be noted in #3 above, that the commenter...It 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.Americanegrohttp://gus.gus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-6634432095137137492015-11-05T12:42:07.128-05:002015-11-05T12:42:07.128-05:00"World is not so plain, as in textbooks."..."World is not so plain, as in textbooks."<br />The world is not so plain, as in the ravings of crackpots.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-84726815356406825482015-11-05T12:32:28.133-05:002015-11-05T12:32:28.133-05:00"Something we cannot see, cannot measure, can..."Something we cannot see, cannot measure, cannot detect, ..."<br />Exactly like Mathis' imaginary "charge field".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-3509159857087153412015-11-04T20:40:06.519-05:002015-11-04T20:40:06.519-05:00Mathis offers no experimental evidence for his pi=...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.<br /><br />Mathis therefore consistently avoids any situation which will experimentally test his theory. He tries to use a derivation as proof and leaves it at that.<br />Big red flag.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />What is proposed without evidence can be dismissed without argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-56899542940993365742015-07-29T19:01:46.577-05:002015-07-29T19:01:46.577-05:00The simplest explanation for dark matter, and curr...The simplest explanation for dark matter, and currently the one that I'm sticking with, is that it does not exist.Americanegrohttp://americanegro.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-17903669201246587532015-06-05T00:23:21.724-05:002015-06-05T00:23:21.724-05:00Open your mind. Light has less mass then matter, t...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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12355628489966974407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-21718003945370709162014-12-20T18:54:55.690-05:002014-12-20T18:54:55.690-05:00The specious Von Braun story of which you have cit...The specious Von Braun story of which you have cited originally came from conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland:<br /><br />"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..."<br /><br />http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland#Mathematical_incompetence<br /><br />Richard Hoagland is an even bigger con man than Mathis. You can't believe anything that comes from Hoagland or Mathis.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-55806321146070198252014-12-16T01:39:26.026-05:002014-12-16T01:39:26.026-05:00Von Braun had a serious problem with his rockets, ...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!davezawadihttp://zawadisoundandlighting.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-57063113678733218992014-10-20T14:29:23.416-05:002014-10-20T14:29:23.416-05:00Hello, Anonymus!
Physical chemistry, chronobiolog...Hello, Anonymus!<br /><br />Physical chemistry, chronobiology and some other methods can feel things Mathis is writing about.<br />Try for example Simon Schnoll "Cosmophysical factors in stochastic processes".<br />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.<br />World is not so plain, as in textbooks.<br /><br />Chears,<br />Edgars AlksnisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-49359019619083429942014-10-20T04:28:01.777-05:002014-10-20T04:28:01.777-05:00Everyone has already read the Mathis pi=4 articles...Everyone 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.<br /><br />Also, 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-89854622248018911142014-09-09T01:23:01.435-05:002014-09-09T01:23:01.435-05:00If you do not understand what the pi=4 reference i...If 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. CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-6523767190767926412014-07-04T23:56:33.953-05:002014-07-04T23:56:33.953-05:00"Not fit to comment"? That's almost ..."Not fit to comment"? That's almost as funny as Miles pi=4 theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-69305037451235844202014-06-10T06:35:54.018-05:002014-06-10T06:35:54.018-05:00Its amazing how pi = 4 is the only thing that anyo...Its 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....). davezawadinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-88037694802708765212014-06-04T06:43:43.185-05:002014-06-04T06:43:43.185-05:00hey, "there's no such thing as bad public...hey, "there's no such thing as bad publicity"Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02725175206527681317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-72469754454036711222014-06-04T05:30:17.689-05:002014-06-04T05:30:17.689-05:00Speaking of bogus theories, Mathis has recently di...Speaking of bogus theories, Mathis has recently discovered new evidence that proves that pi=4.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-80229628520288955092014-06-04T05:04:29.269-05:002014-06-04T05:04:29.269-05:00No one is asking for "miracles and magic"...No 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com