This looks more and more like a personal vendetta you have against Miles.
As i said before i can not take any of your posts serious. In every post you have written there are lies about Mathis his work or what he has or has not done. When you write lies why should anybody listen to you?
Regards, Daniel
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
This thread is about Mathis and I saw no restrictions which required anyone to accept his ideas . I saw no requirement posted which forced us to only praise Mathis. There is much criticism against other theories other than Mathis" on this forum. There is hardly a day that goes by without someone blowing off about CERN or some theory or other which they think is untrue. Mathis' own criticisms about... well almost everybody, if isolated, would fill at least a couple of books. As Mathis' himself said, he did not have the inclination to include derivations, etc., in his articles so that they were more self-contained. He directed the reader to look them up in the separate article, presumably to save him time and space. Yet he repeats, ad nauseum, much of his pet criticisms against many of his pet targets in every article he writes. So much for saving space and time.
I have clearly stated my criticisms of some of Mathis' ideas and I have indicated I have no faith in his brand of bumbling theorizing. And since none of us are conducting experiments to back up any of our assertions we'll have to leave it at that. This is a forum and I have put forth my arguments that Mathis' musings are unconvincing. So you, d archer are left pottering away at me instead of strengthening any argument you may have in defense of anything Mathis has written. In your frustration you now accuse me of "lies". About what only God knows.
Mathis has had free reign to gratuitously criticize and ridicule people, sometimes by name, for almost a decade while writing highly dubious, unsubstantiated musings. I think that criticism of his ideas is called for. Not looking equally at criticism is willful ignorance. I find it problematic that the charge field he incessantly refers to is not testable or falsifiable but still used by him to prop up his misunderstandings about lift on a wing.
To be taken seriously, Mathis must realize he can't keep dashing off alternative theories of already-observed anomalies, which anyone can do, while ignoring real-world experimental support. Mathis claims he has completely reinvented many parts of physics. Certainly a real-world experiment could be arranged where current science predicts one outcome, Mathis predicts another and the result is unquestionably one or the other. If the people on this forum understand Mathis' theories so well, maybe they can arrange something. Hold a fund raiser and then arrange an experiment? There is, of course, the unwillingness of Mathis to lead such an effort. He has often claimed he has no money, but he did vanity-publish two books so that isn't true. Whenever readers have asked him to do an experiment he has responded with "I don't have the time for such things and I prefer to just write papers", according to one poster on another site. Since no experiments have been forthcoming and many others have reported similar responses from him, I tend to believe what they're saying. Theories alone cannot carry, no matter what phenomena they are supposed to explain. Theories have to be verified by experimental testing.
Doesn't anyone else find it suspicious that Mathis does not want to test his theories?
phyllotaxis
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
I think this brings up the big problem in many avenues of exploration as they exist in modern-day, internet written "science".
There's 9 parts talk to 1 part experiment.
I think the fact that one guy is writing a bunch of something in his house and posting it to the internet is reflective of problems in many scientific circles- it's time to stop talking about it, explaining it, and arguing about it-- it's time to shift all that effort to physical test creation, implementation, and results analyses. I'm not only talking about MM here-- I'm talking about the fact that there seems to be plenty of effort at arguing words without ever suggesting experiments.
People like Miles Mathis can of course write thousands of pages of anything he likes, and some people will believe him when he puts the thoughts on the internet. But what does the "belief" DO?
It does nothing. It is effectively meaningless, transitory, and lost to time the moment the few 'fans' of it lose interest or find something better to watch and agree with. This is true of all non-experimental "science". It's talk.
I want a bunch of whitecoats to prove via experiment whether something he's written is even in the ballpark, or decidedly different from what everyone else claims. I think he should be eager to figure out ways--or work with others that would like to help-- to show the cause-and-effect he claims to understand. Someone that avoids proofing their own argument comes off strongly and strangely afraid of what the results could reveal. No scientist should be so invested in a hypothesis that they are afraid to see the results of a test of it. If they're wrong, then they have LEARNED a fact that can be used to create a modified hypothesis to then eventually re-test and fine-tune the facts to learn the truth.
In other words, in science, a failure is a win as well, because disproving something is evidence that you can use to grow your understanding. People that just assert and fear testing are invested in being right--which means they are not objective scientists-- no matter how eloquent their written paintings are. They are just writers.
I personally don't care if a person is eccentric or even rude. What I care about is the accuracy of their statements.
Really, without experiment, every assertion is as useless as an order for rain during a drought-- whether it rains or not has nothing to do with the guy doing the talking. If we want to advance science, then we must advance applied science, and shove the too-many written dreams to the back of the line for awhile to see what the evidence demands we examine next. Then, when we've got some results, we'll use those to refine the aims of future research and musings.
At least we'd know we are on the right track. As it is now, there's no way to know-- there's just words.
Kindest regards--
Chromium6
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Okay, here's a paper randomly pulled from his website. What would be a good "white-coat" real world experiment for this? You want his theories to predict something so what do you think, what would be a good "applied" experiment to validate this?
The onus is not on an observer to validate the musings of another man's idea- especially when he declares it to be true.
Do you really expect me to validate/test his ideas before he does?
Based on what criterion?
David
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Phyllotaxis,
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that today's amateur, vanity published scientist is "9 parts talk to 1 part experiment". You have grossly inflated the numbers. To the best of my knowledge, Mathis has never performed so much as a single experiment; not even one! So it's not "9 parts talk to 1 part experiment", but rather 100% talk and zero experimentation.
On a side note, an earlier poster repeatedly referred to Mathis as "Dr. Mathis" — implying that Mathis is an accredited scientist with a PhD. Maybe this was just an honest mistake; but nonetheless, let's set the record straight. According to the bio posted at the Mathis art web site, Mathis majored in liberal arts and received a bachelor's degree. His course study included: diving, gymnastics, ballet, Latin, and philosophy. Curiously, there is no mention of having taken even a single math or science course while in college.
I strongly suspect that Mathis developed his math and physics theories while practicing pirouettes for his ballet class – that would explain the disorientation of his ideas.
Miles biggest blunder is not the pi=4 paper; even though it is a monumental screw up and embarrassment for him. No, his biggest error was in not writing his papers in crayon, and affixing them to his refrigerator door along side the other children's scribblings.
Chromium6
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Well, he has good taste in women and uses good logic. There are so many lies in this world of economics, science and even art.
I doubt few on this forum could compete with him in a math contest using crayons or pencils and that includes you David.
D_Archer
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Gottlieb680 wrote:
This is a forum and I have put forth my arguments that Mathis' musings are unconvincing. So you, d archer are left pottering away at me instead of strengthening any argument you may have in defense of anything Mathis has written. In your frustration you now accuse me of "lies". About what only God knows
I am not frustrated with anything. I am not here to defend Mathis and never have in any post of mine. I only tried to explain to you what Mathis meant with his pi=4 paper and that it is not an easy concept to grasp and in my mind nothing is proven yet. Only time will tell.
God knows you Gottlieb680 and he is telling you to not bother unless you make a substantial well thought out argument. If you just wanted to say that Mathis is unconvincing in his ideas etc you sure used a lot of words just to say that.
Pleae reread your own posts and try to find places where you have made sweeping statements about Mathis his body of work, i count those as lies. At the least it highlights you have not fully read all his papers.
Regards, Daniel
Sparky
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
Did Newton experiment, or just observe? Ireallydonno
Corpuscles
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
I can't help speculating whether Miles Mathis, is sitting back having a good belly laugh reaction to this "discussion" ? (Lloyd would certainly have asked his permission to post interview replies here... he would be aware of it?)
MM does seem to have a very entertaining ,good sense of humour.
Seeming somewhat excentric, but clearly very intelligent well read artist (arty , out of the square thinking type), who has a hobby of presenting readable, interesting thought provoking articles. But, perhaps based on vitriolic comment here.. he seems come across to some as being narcassitic or arrogant?..
The object seems to me to prevoke and foster alternative thinking. Almost as if he is demonstrating a satirical parody of the unfortunate sad state mainstream "science" has progressively plummeted ( in particular physics or astrophysics in the last 100 years ). Albeit he seems rather proud and self convinced about his unified field postulate.
It is interesting stuff, but things like his ever expanding earth/ universe concept and the pi=4 rant ...loose or bewilder me
Clearly his musings are not meant to be read as serious complete scientific thesis (e.g he often introduces calculated quantities and or "facts" without showing how he arrived at them)
Very entertaining..... but be cautious of taking his doctrines seriously
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
D archer, I have brought up specific examples about Mathis' errors and have explained what I believe the mistakes are. There are no lies in my posts and I bring up information referred to by Mathis in his own articles. Your referring to rational arguments as just words indicates you are the one who isn't up to the same. I have consistently written about specific claims by Mathis that are either not true or not convincing, and you have done little except snipe at me. If you believe Mathis without any of his theories being verified by experiment that is your problem, but there is the larger issue of people referencing some recluse who resists having his ideas tested. That is no way to achieve progress as Phyllotaxis rightly points out. We need less talk about theories more verification. I have also made the same point.
And what's this about not having fully read ALL his "papers"? It is well past 2000 by now and is probably approaching 3000. Reading and researching one every four days will only get me up to 91 "papers" in a whole year. The articles I've read at random, each one of them, has indicated to me Mathis is a crank. I can't justify giving him a pass I would not give to any other author. You read all of his "papers" if you want. I reserve the right to note errors when and wherever I see them and when they start to add up I have to conclude something is wrong in the author's ideas.
And what's this further nonsense of yours, that God is telling me not to bother unless I make a substantial well thought out argument? Compared to your posts, mine have been the soul of well thought-out argument. You are the one who hasn't contributed anything substantial. You have no idea what God tells me. If you believe Mathis' ideas, you cannot be so fearful that supposed unsubstantial arguments can unseat him in your esteem. What I think you mean by your comments to me, so far as you meant anything at all, is that you don't want me to criticize Mathis' ideas, and seeing that your whole notion of criticizing me for criticizing is mere pique, you did not think of his ideas distinctly enough to enable you to speak of them with any precision. Science depends on discussing and testing ideas. This forum is for discussion.
D_Archer
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
My reference to God was because you said "About what only God knows"
This implied to me that you should do some soul searching and really think about what you wrote, but alas my point did not reach you.
I think we are at the end of this, i wish you all the best.
Regards, Daniel
Gottlieb680
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
D Archer, I think we are indeed at an end of your unsubstantiated mewling about my reasoned arguments concerning the errors of Mathis. I think about what I am about to write before I write, I think about it afterward before I post, and I consider my writing once it has been posted. Since this entire thread is devoid of anything from you except complaints about me, maybe you don't have to be as fastidious as I have attempted to be as far as writing is concerned.
I have tried to be as clear and as specific as possible about the errors in some of Mathis' opinions. I am not a scientist, but apparently I don't have to be to spot faulty reasoning (see my comment on Mathis' "If I were more rigid, I would weigh more" notion, for example) and I have been very clear about why I think the reasoning is faulty. That's all anyone can do in a forum.
But you haven't even bothered to illuminate anything in your writings one way or the other.
So search your own soul and figure out why you can't write anything worthwhile.
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
* Okay, Folks. Here's an experiment that Mathis proposed from http://milesmathis.com/hight.pdf, called An Experiment to Test the Charge Field. * Some say he never does any experiments, but I contend that nearly every conscious human does lots of experiments every day. But I digress. Also, I want to point out that, contrary to one person's impression, Mathis has abandoned his previous idea of an expanding universe, although he hasn't revised all of his papers to explain that. Instead of the universe expanding, he now thinks it spins. I'm not satisfied with that either, but I think it's an improvement. Anyway, I'll now post the first few paragraphs from his paper above. The image on the left is shown first and the one on the right is shown after his second paragraph below.
by Miles Mathis
Since I have returned physics to its mechanical foundations, I am often asked by my readers for experiments to prove my theories. My normal answer is that we already have tons of misread data sitting around, and I prefer to use that. My papers are mainly about re-interpreting centuries of standing data in a more logical way. However, I have also proposed new experiments in many papers, and this paper is another of those.
My last paper was about plate tectonics, and there I provided a diagram of charge recycling, as above. I have been asked how I came to that. Simple: just inscribe an equilateral triangle within the circle. This gives us charge emission maxima 30o N and S of the equator, as in the diagram below.
[Second image above goes here.]
Some will think that is some kind of Kabala or mysticism, but it isn't. It is simple math. And of course it is just a 2D simplification of the 3D spinning sphere. In that 3D diagram, we wouldn't have a triangle in a circle, we would have a cone within a sphere. So it wouldn't look so Kabalistic in that case. In either case, this is just a simple representation of math. The longer math has been done and you can redo it if you like. It describes how angular momentum varies across a spinning sphere, given any material introduced at the poles. You will say angular momentum must be greatest at the equator, and that is true given only the spinning sphere itself. But if we integrate that motion with the motion of some particle or substance introduced with a given radial velocity inward at the pole, we obtain the maxima above. Think of it this way: the maximum emission would be at the equator only if we introduced our particles at the center of the sphere. In that case the particle would just move out on the radial line. But since our particle has a velocity of its own, and is introduced at the pole, its maximum emission must be somewhere past the midpoint or equator. You might think the rate of spin of the sphere or the speed of the particle would determine the math, but it doesn't. What determines the math is the fact that our introduced particles will be distributed by the laws of probabilities to all parts of the sphere. They will be channeled most heavily to one part, the maximum. To find that maximum, we can divide our sphere into western and eastern halves. Half must go into the eastern hemisphere and half must go to the western. That by itself allows us to solve, since that halving can be represented by a splitting of the incoming angle. We start by solving in one plane, or two dimensions, then expand our solution into 3D. As you see, that is precisely what the equilateral triangle is representing in the 2D diagram: an equal split of the probability into east and west hemispheres. That is what the two red lines coming down represent in this math. They represent an equal split east and west in this 2D diagram. We then just integrate or extrapolate that solution into a 360o solution, and the problem is solved. The particle goes to that maximum by combining simple circle math with simple probability math. The normal math is much more complicated than that, but as you know I like the short and sweet versions, explained in words.
[Some readers have not followed me. They say, "Any two red lines of equal length and equal angle would fit your analysis here. Why those two red lines? Yes, they create the equilateral triangle where no other red lines would, but why does that matter?" It matters because in this math the red lines are representing the sum of the incoming particles. If they don't create the equilateral triangle, they don't sum to 1 and therefore don't represent the full amount of charge entering. The probabilities east and west sum to 1 only in the case that we have an equilateral triangle. Think of it this way. Say we have a sum of ten instead of 1. Say we have ten boys and we want to divide them in half. We can't just create two groups of 4 and say that because the two groups are equal we have solved the problem. Any two equal groups won't solve the problem. It is the same with the length of the red lines above. We can't just make them equal in length and angle, we have to make them sum to a whole. That is what the equilateral triangle represents. The charge lines create the maxima while also filling the circle. If we make the red lines shorter so that they hit the circle higher, the sum won't fill the circle. We will have more charge in the top half than the bottom. If we make the lines longer so that they hit the circle lower, more charge will be in the bottom half. Only by creating the equilateral triangle can we fill the circle while finding the maxima. For instance, let us look at a variant diagram: {Image shows a circle with an isosceles triangle whose apex is at the north pole and whose base is on the equator.}
Why not draw the 2D recycling from the north pole like that? Well, that can't represent the recycling of charge because that diagram indicates that all the charge is summed in the northern hemisphere. No charge from the north pole would make it into the southern hemisphere. Why? Because if we find the average charge—or the center of mass of the charge—we would simply find the center of that triangle. As you see, the center of the triangle—and all parts of the triangle—are in the northern hemisphere. That is illogical, because there is no reason a circle or sphere would recycle charge that way, and every reason it wouldn't. But with the equilateral triangle above, the center of the triangle is at the center of the circle, indicating that charge is indeed being distributed to the circle as a whole. We have integrated the incoming charge with the angular momentum of the sphere as a whole, you see.]
This provides an immediate explanation of the hottest places on Earth.
{I expect to quote the remainder later.}
Lloyd
Re: Miles Mathis Interview
* It's later now, so here's the rest of the paper.
Given current theory, you would think the hottest places on Earth would be very near the equator, since they get the most heating from the Sun over the course of the year. But we know the hottest places aren't anywhere near the equator. To explain that, we are now provided with complex meteorological models, which push the temperature maxima to the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. Unfortunately, the temperature maxima aren't at the Tropics either. If you study the actual temperature charts, the maxima are centered on 30o N and S, not 23o N and S, although this fact is normally hidden. This can't be explained by current models, since the Sun spends very little time each year directly over the Tropics, and no time directly over 30o N or S. And yet Death Valley is about 35o N. That is mostly due to low elevation, of course, but Presidio, Texas, at 30o N, is one of the hottest places in North America, with an average June high of 102o F. The hottest places in Mexico aren't at 23o N, they are in the far north, with the highest recorded temperature being at Mexicali, at 32o N. The hottest spots in Libya are about 31o N, and the hottest spots in Kuwait are also about 30o N. In Iran, the Lut desert is at 30o N, and is known as one of the hottest places on Earth. In Pakistan, the hottest spots are in Balouchistan and southern Sindh, centering on about 28o N. In India, the hottest spots are in the Thar Desert, at about 28o N. And of course they would be more northern than that but for the elevation increases in northern India. Ambala, at 30o N, is at more than twice the elevation of the Thar desert. The hottest spots in the south are in Southern Australia (28o S, see Oodnadatta), not Central Australia (23o S), and in South Africa, not Botswana or Namibia. In South America, the highest temperature was recorded at Villa de Maria, Argentina, at 30o S.
My theory of charge recycling also explains why the north is hotter than the south. We see record temperatures above 140o in the north, but nearer 120o in the south. Because the ambient charge field is richer in photons than antiphotons, the north is more heavily charged year-round. This would also explain why the South Pole is colder than the North Pole. I have already predicted this photon/antiphoton imbalance and discussed it in previous papers, including my paper on the Coriolis Effect. I have used it to explain everything from weather patterns to beta decay to the magnetopause to the charge profile of Venus.
I will be told that these maximum temperatures are caused by climate, not by charge. If my charge theory were true, the entire latitude of 30o would be composed of deserts or hot spots, and it isn't. China is cooler in the south than the north, and New Orleans isn't nearly as hot as Death Valley or Presidio. But while climate is certainly a factor, it is secondary. Things like elevation and weather patterns certainly come into the mix, but the baseline is still determined by charge. New Orleans is not a desert, and it is not as hot as Death Valley, but it is plenty hot. And we have been looking at air temperatures so far, not ground temperatures. The air temperatures in New Orleans are indeed mitigated by climate and weather patterns, but I predict that ground temperatures at equal elevations and depths are quite high at 30o in Louisiana and China, just as high as Death Valley or the Lut Desert. Beyond that, I can turn the tables and ask the climatologists to explain why these deserts are at 30o N. Yes, the deserts are a result of elevation and climate, in part, but not all low elevations in similar weather positions create deserts. Any quick study of latitude variations tells us that something is happening here other than elevation and climate and weather patterns. These extremely high temperatures can't be predicted from climate, elevation, or weather patterns. It must be ground and sub-ground temperatures that are driving all the other factors, and these temperatures are the result of charge recycling.
Which brings us to the title of this paper. No one has to take my word for any of this. We could test my theory simply by testing ground temperatures at some depth and equal elevations, at 23o N and 30o N. We could do the same thing south. In order to take climate, elevation, and weather patterns out of the mix, we would measure ground temperatures at some depth, say at least 50 feet. This would minimize direct warming of the ground by the Sun or atmosphere, and leave us measuring internal heating by charge. We should also be careful to take all measurements at the same elevation above sea level. The measurements in the south should be taken 6 months away from the measurements in the north. We would have to take a fairly large number of measurements at different longitudes, and average them, to avoid the highs and lows caused by variations in crust thickness and density and so on.
I predict two things: 1) the average temperatures found at 30o N will be higher than at 23o N or at the equator. 2) the average temperatures N will be higher than S. Since current theory has no way to explain higher ground temperatures at depth at 30o, and my theory does, this would be a confirmation of charge recycling. The same goes for the N-S variation. Current theory has no way to explain higher ground temperatures at 30o N than S, and my theory does.
My theory of charge also has the benefit of tying together many subfields of astrophysics, particle physics, and geophysics. Currently, these subfields have little or no connection to one another, and the explanations are ad hoc explanations that have no general validity. I have shown that charge underlies and supports all of these subfields, being a sort of universal solvent for longstanding physical problems.
