The Miles Mathis interview is a colossal disappointment. Mathis was never once asked about his most famous theory: pi equals 4. That's like interviewing Einstein and never bringing up the topic of relativity. As everyone knows, Mathis has garnered considerable attention primarily due to his assertion that pi equals 4. Yet, he isn't even asked about it.
Numerous web sites have torn the pi equals 4 theory to shreds. Mathis' proof has been picked apart and proven to be false. How could this not have come up in the interview?
Mathis has never proposed a single experiment that would prove that pi equals 4. But I can offer this experiment as proof that it doesn't. Take a phonograph turntable and toggle it on and off, and see if pi changes back and forth from 3.14 to 4.
Aardwolf
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Gottlieb680 wrote: The clock, most notably, did indeed run slower just as the theory predicted and the satellites which were launched later had clocks which incorporated a correction factor of something like 30 milliseconds per 24 hours.
The clocks ran faster in orbit.
Sparky
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
The clocks ran faster in orbit.
Were these battery powered or windup??....
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
* David, I emailed Miles your complaint and challenge and he said it wasn't worth his time to respond to it.
David
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Lloyd,
Thanks for trying, I appreciate the effort!
It appears that even Mathis himself isn't eager to defend the indefensible; that's understandable. What doesn't make sense though, is that Mathis has left the pi equals 4 paper, as is, uncorrected, posted at his web site; knowing that it's wrong. Would a serious, legitimate scientist do such a thing?
If Mathis wants to be taken seriously, he has to man up, admit to his mistake, and make the necessary corrections. Otherwise, he will continue to be seen as a crank, crackpot and kook.
Sparky
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
David wrote: Lloyd,
Thanks for trying, I appreciate the effort!
It appears that even Mathis himself isn't eager to defend the indefensible; that's understandable. What doesn't make sense though, is that Mathis has left the pi equals 4 paper, as is, uncorrected, posted at his web site; knowing that it's wrong.Would a serious, legitimate scientist do such a thing?
If Mathis wants to be taken seriously, he has to man up, admit to his mistake, and make the necessary corrections. Otherwise, he will continue to be seen as a crank, crackpot and kook.
What presumptuous nonsense! Indefensible?
YOUR,"
Mathis has never proposed a single experiment that would prove that pi equals 4. But I can offer this experiment as proof that it doesn't. Take a phonograph turntable and toggle it on and off, and see if pi changes back and forth from 3.14 to 4.
What kind of an experiment is that?! Turning a turntable on and off??!!!
"knowing that it's wrong"?! How would you know what Miles knows?! You have reached a conclusion and arrogantly assume that Miles must agree with you!
"-a serious, legitimate scientist"! They are Few and far between, if they do exist in standard cosmology and as quantum theorist, given the nonsense they proclaim as facts, black holes, neutron stars, big bang, etc... What criteria do you apply to being a "serious, legitimate scientist"? Serious, legitimate scientists, not in lock step with consensus, put themselves at risk, even if proven correct later on!
"
Mathis' proof has been picked apart and proven to be false.
An undocumented assertion! Supply your argument for evaluation here!
Does pi = 4?! I don't know, but your argument is illogical and shallow, as presented here. Actually, I don't give a duck (sic)!....
David
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Links to web sites that prove that pi does not equal 4. Note: Be sure and read the comments, many of the errors are explained there.
List of errors in the "pi equals 4" theory: 1) The radius is a velocity 2) Newton monitored the wrong angle in Lemma 6 of the Principia 3) Pi has two values: 3.14 and 4 (static and kinematic) 4) A circle is composed of only straight lines, no curves; a stairstep 5) Time is "embedded in the curve". (Wait, I thought there were no curves?) 6) The "short version" proof does not contain a time variable. 7) The tangent is never taken to a limit, as claimed 8) The chord is converted into its x and y components and then summed together, giving it a new, longer length. 9) The tangent is substituted into the proof illegally
If you want, I can elaborate on any of these errors; but most of them have already been discussed at the links provided above.
Testing the theory: Take a phonograph turntable and measure its diameter and circumference, in both the on and off positions. Pi remains 3.14 in either position, thus disproving the theory.
Mathis has a link to "sagacityssentinel" at his web site, so he is fully aware of the errors in his theory.
phyllotaxis
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
As an observer, I welcome seeing critiques of these ideas. I do consider myself a friend of MM's work and effort, but I appreciate seeing the same level of specific criticism (which he liberally applies to everyone else) dealt back to his work as well.
sjw40364
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
They are all confused because of the most fundamental error and misinterpretation. The speed of light is NOT a constant. Photons are NOT light, they are emitted and then emit the light particle in all directions, but strongest in the plane of travel, i.e. alignment. It is a composite particle of photons and the actual light particle, it is aligned just as electrons in magnetic materials align, just as stars around a galaxy align and galactic jets are the same principle as the beam of light. Interference in slit tests is because photons are NOT light, they emit the light particle which passes through both slits which interpretation they have tried to explain to a single particle.
Sparky
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Photons are NOT light, they are emitted and then emit the light particle in all directions,
Is this the same as Michael V's quantum, or is it more close to the size of a photon?
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Sparky, it is easy to see what Mathis knows, and what he doesn't, by reading what he wrote. Mathis is in a box of his own construction. After criticizing almost everyone, he has let stand the biggest, most easily avoided blunder of his sorry career as an internet amateur scientist... pi=4. Anyone coming to his site, after reading pi=4, must wonder that if he can't navigate the relatively simple path to pi=3.14, what else has he screwed up on? This is not an idle question.
Mathis has made a botch of a number of topics. Take" Lift on a Wing" for example. Mathis ridicules the idea that angle of attack and airfoil shape contribute to lift. (1) He posts a photo of two fighters, one of them upside down, to show that, even perfectly level and upside down, lift is still achieved.(2) He posts a photo of an airliner on a runway to show that lift can be achieved for takeoff without angle of attack ( angle of attack is the degree to which the leading edge of a wing is elevated above the trailing edge relative to the direction of travel in level flight).(3) He posts a photo of an airliner about to lift off the runway with its nose elevated to illustrate his claim that the nose has lift even though it isn't a wing. In all this Mathis clearly demonstrates his misunderstanding of what flight is and how airplanes achieve it. If he had researched the subject with the intent to actually learn, instead of finding imaginary ammunition to fire at scientists, he would never have written this "paper". Mathis' posting of the photos I mentioned above give him away. In the first example the fighters are flying at angles of attack but the photos can't show the actual angle for there is nothing to compare with. Just because they look so to him it is unscientific for him to claim they are flying without angle of attack based on a photo. Biplanes all flew at angles of attack,even when flying upside down. All WW2 planes did too, though with increased speeds angles of attack necessarily diminish. With the jet fighters in Mathis' photo high speed is required just to stay in the air because they need small, short wings to counteract drag and at high speed the angle of attack is very small. His photo, of course, can't show that. And the fact that he obviously does not know this is telling.
His second and third photos deepen the hole for him. An aircraft with tricycle landing gear can lift off the runway with a near zero angle of attack but it can't lift sufficiently to go very high and even as the speed increases it still would not climb unless the elevator or horizontal stabilizer's trailing edge is angled upward to force down the tail and raise the nose. Mathis thinks the nose raises because of lift. This is the degree to which he does not know what he's talking about when he tackles this subject. And so this leads him to make such absurd claims that fast cars at the Bonneville salt flats sometimes "take off" with no angle of attack and no wings. Of course the reason for this is that those cars bounce up and down very slightly on their suspensions and at 500 mph plus one of those bounces exposes the underside to enough extra airstream to give the cars an exceptional angle of attack and the result is a big liftoff. But with aircraft a quick takeoff is made possible by several forces acting in concert. Mathis gives no sign of knowing this but the old biplanes and newer craft such as the P-51 Mustang were tail draggers and had their angle of attack built in as they were already tilted nose up on the ground. Their pilots didn't have to pull the stick back for the plane to climb. They could do it, though, to increase climb or shorten takeoff. With modern airliners, the angle of attack is slight and near- level lift is achieved but the nose won't raise and the climb won't occur until the elevator surface is angled to force the nose down and the tail up, as I have said. But Mathis is so intent on squeezing out alternate theories at everyone else's expense, at the rate of a "paper" every three days, he can't be bothered to learn his subject. According to him, physics is corrupt, calculus is corrupt, the textbooks are wrong, the scientists are mostly wrong, mathematicians are mostly wrong, and professors are incompetent and are only parroting textbooks which are wrong. Only Mathis has seen what others haven't over the centuries. When I was in my twenties I worked on the design of the B-1 Lancer. Any one of my colleagues could have straightened Mathis out on the lift issue. Even I could. But I know the effort would be useless. He could always say we are only parroting textbooks.
"Lift on a Wing" is filled with attacks on scientists. He accuses them of incompetence, of dishonesty, of treating the readers of their explanations as idiots,of dodging, and of evasions. He starts out by saying no subject has produced so many non-sense answers as lift on a wing. And he finishes by proposing that lift is provided by the "buoyancy" of air and his go-to explanation, " charge ". And he proposes no experiment of course.
People can believe Mathis if they want but I wonder if this is because he has a better explanation or is it because some people get off on the weird and the alternative for their own sake. I think Mathis is now too far gone to really learn anything. He just manipulates his pet theories to curtail and degrade the understanding of any given idea so that he can get to what he really wants to do... attack almost everybody, and learning be damned.
D_Archer
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Mathis is a no holds bar intellect, this comes because he is first and foremost an artist.
It is good to criticize him and use straight arguments.
Pi=4 of Mathis has not been refuted by anyone, if you follow his logic it makes sense. His corrections to the calculus are invaluable and a true insight to get it right for once.
The paper on flight was not totally convincing, probably mainly because he used it as a vehicle to prove his charge field. The attacks on mainstream where legit in my eyes as he attackes standard explanations on Wiki mostly, do you agree with those? What IS the main cause of lift, angle of attack does what? The shape of the wing? Or is it something else? The only straight facts we have is that lift has a direct relation to speed and air displacement, is that the secret?
Regards, Daniel
ps. A sidenote, critics like to pick and choose where to attack Mathis but never come around and point out where he is completely right, i guess there is no argument in those instances...the list goes on and on.
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Mathis is consistently wrong and for someone who poses as a know-it-all he does not. He routinely takes working models and inserts his pet theories, never bothering to experiment. He's a woolgatherer. The "Lift on a Wing" is a template for his bumbling and he follows the same course for numerous subjects which he could have saved himself trouble about if he only had the humility and sharpness to investigate the phenomena before firing off 10,000 word "papers" to expose his massive ignorance.
Mathis' pi=4 has been refuted so many times, see previous poster's links, that it has even affected the way many people see his other opinions. Mathis knows it is wrong and he is suffering for it. He's become reclusive and his manic writing of further useless "papers" (at a rate of one every three days) is indicative of his desire to avoid experimenting to prove any of his thousands of theories.
His pi=4 is easily sunk by once again referring to aviation technology. Consider the blades of a helicopter in plan view. The circle described by its blade tips does not change in size from stationary to rotating. There is only a small variation due to mechanical tolerance. The kinematics of this situation do not change the circle's dimensions or the accuracy of pi=3.14 in the measure of it. Mathis does not say, and he can not say, he has an experiment to prove pi=4 in this and other similar situations. Criticizing NASA (and thank God he does not work for them) for their orbital calculations just doesn't cut it. Exactly where is this pi=4 supposed to appear? Through math on paper in his derivation? But he's made so many complaints against math in his opinions on science( "unnecessary maths" ) that one wonders what made him go on this fool's errand against the correct value of pi. You can take any objects, sphere, cylinder, disc, cone, or ring, which have as their part a circle and subject them to spins around any axis and subject the whole to any additional simultaneous motions circular, linear, etc and the result will still be that pi=3.14. I know this because it has already been done in military applications. If pi jumped from 3.14 stationary to 4 in motion, every compressor shaft in all the B-1's engines and the circles described by the blades would have gone out of tolerances and blown the engines. Radar sweeps would be inaccurate depending on whether the operator was moving or the target was moving.
Mathis is a victim of his own pretensions. He thinks he's a genius but he is an incredible muddler. He is 47 and needs to get serious and start experimenting. If he's right about any of his claims, proven through experiment, any at all, he will get recognition. But we all know he won't do that. It's too easy to solicit money on his website for doing nothing at all.
D_Archer
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
I can not take your response serious, sorry; you have a lot of words but actually say nothing of worth.
Regards, Daniel
Sparky
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Gottlieb680
old biplanes and newer craft such as the P-51 Mustang were tail draggers and had their angle of attack built in as they were already tilted nose up on the ground.
I appreciated your posts and arguments, but you do know that a tail dragger will quickly lift it's tail to put the wing in a near neutral position on take off roll in order to gain speed. Of course, at lift off the wing must have an angle of attack. Some of these STOL planes just jump off the ground! There are some utube vids. that are amazing...Of course, with enough power, you can fly a barn..
I have not read Mathis' flying paper, but if he says that "charge" is what makes an aircraft fly, then that is just crazy. As for pi, I donno, but will accept measurement of circumference divided by diameter should equal 3.14159...
